MAMUTOV v. RUSSIA and 2 other applications

Published on 20 October 2025

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 23993/17
Bekir Ablayevych MAMUTOV against Russia
and 2 other applications
(see list appended)
communicated on 3 October 2025

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES

The applications concern the banning of the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (hereinafter – “the Mejlis”) by the “Supreme Court of Crimea” on 16 April 2016.

The Mejlis, operating in Crimea, is the high representative and executive body of the Crimean Tatar people and was founded in 1991 to represent the interests of the Crimean Tatars before the Ukrainian and Crimean authorities, as well as before international organisations. Consisting of thirty-three members elected by and accountable to the Qurultai (the general assembly of Crimean Tatars), the Mejlis is the high representative and executive body of the Crimean Tatar people. It functions as the permanent executive body between the sessions of the Qurultai (held every five years), implementing its decisions and representing the Crimean Tatar people. The most recent full Qurultai session took place in Bakhchysaray, Crimea, in October 2013, when the current Mejlis composition was elected.

On 15 February 2016, relying on the anti-extremism provisions of the Russian Federation legislation, the “Prosecutor of the Republic of Crimea” brought before the “Supreme Court of Crimea” an action against the Mejlis, seeking a judgment declaring the Mejlis as an extremist organisation and consequently banning its activities. On 12 April 2016 the activities of the Mejlis were temporarily suspended pending the “court’s decision”. On 26 April 2016 the “Supreme Court of Crimea” granted the prosecutorial action. On 29 September 2016 the Administrative Division of the Russian Supreme Court dismissed the appeal by the Mejlis. This appeal judgment is final and not amenable to any further appeal.

The present applications were brought by three members of the Mejlis.

The applicants complain that the order for the dissolution of the Mejlis and the ban on its activity constituted an interference with their freedom of association under Article 11 of the Convention.

The applicants complain under Article 18 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 11, that the real purpose of the above-indicated ban was to silence and to punish the Mejlis and its members for their political opposition.

The applicants allege several breaches of their right to a fair trial under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. Specifically, that the “Supreme Court of Crimea” was not “established by law” in light of the annexation of Crimea; that it had no relevant ratione materiae jurisdiction; and that in any event it was not independent and impartial due to the judges’ involvement in other political cases, and finally that the equality between the parties was violated due to the prosecutor’s presence in the administrative process.

Relying on Article 7 of the Convention, the applicants argue that the designation of the Mejlis as an “extremist organisation” retroactively criminalised legitimate activities of Crimean Tatars and exposed them to prosecution under vague and unforeseeable Russian anti-extremism laws, which lacked clarity given that they blurred the line between extremism and lawful activity. They further argue that the retroactive imposition of Russian law in occupied Crimea, without proper publication, constituted a violation of Article 7 of the Convention, as also reflected by the safeguards set out in Articles 64 and 65 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

The applicants further complain under Article 8 of the Convention that they were prevented from communicating freely with other representatives of the Crimean Tatar self-government bodies or with Crimean Tatars on professional and private matters.

The applicants submit that they had no effective remedy for the alleged breaches mentioned above, as required by Article 13 of the Convention.

Lastly, and relying on Thlimmenos v. Greece [GC], no. 34369/97, § 44, ECHR 2000-IV, the applicants complain under Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 11 that no distinction was made between the specific status of the Mejlis as a representative body of the indigenous peoples, and other public associations of Crimean Tatars.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1.  Have the applicants complied with the admissibility requirements set forth in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?

2.  Can the applicants, in view of their personal capacity as Mejlis members, claim to be victims of a violation of the Convention, within the meaning of Article 34?

3.  In the affirmative, has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to freedom of association, contrary to Article 11 of the Convention (see Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea), [GC], nos. 20958/14 and 38334/18, §§ 1123-28, 25 June 2024)?

4.  Were the restrictions imposed by the respondent State in the present case, purportedly pursuant to Article 11 of the Convention, applied for a purpose other than those envisaged by that provision, contrary to Article 18 of the Convention (see Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea) [GC], cited above, §§ 1351‑82)?

5.  Do the applicants have locus standi to invoke Article 6 of the Convention in relation to the proceedings which were concluded with the judgment of the Russian Supreme Court of 29 September 2016, in view of the fact that they were not a party to those proceedings (see Athanassoglou and Others v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27644/95, § 43, ECHR 2000-IV; Gorraiz Lizarraga and Others v. Spain, no. 62543/00, §§ 35-39, ECHR 2004-III)?

6.  If the answer to the preceding question is in the affirmative, were the proceedings concerning the ban on the Mejlis adjudicated by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea), [GC], cited above, §§ 943-46, 25 June 2024?

7.  Does the designation of the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People as an extremist organisation, triggering the applicability of Russian anti-extremism legislation in Crimea, comply with the requirements of Article 7 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea) [GC], cited above, §§ 1274-78)?

8.  Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their private life and correspondence, in breach of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention?

9.  Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their Convention complaints, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?

10.  Have the applicants suffered discrimination contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 11 (see Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea) [GC], cited above, §§ 1181-90)?

In particular, have the applicants been subjected to a difference in treatment by failing to recognise the Mejlis’ specific status as a representative body of the indigenous peoples?

APPENDIX

List of applications:

No.

Application no.

Case name

Lodged on

Applicant
Year of Birth
Nationality

Represented by

1.

23993/17

Mamutov v. Russia

20/03/2017

Bekir Ablayevych MAMUTOV
1956
Ukrainian

Mykhaylo Oleksandrovych TARAKHKALO

2.

24015/17

Umerov v. Russia

20/03/2017

Ilmi Rustemovych UMEROV
1957
Ukrainian

3.

32270/17

Suleymanov v. Russia

18/04/2017

Abmazhyt Mambetovych SULEYMANOV
1957
Ukrainian

Borys Volodymyrovych BABIN