Published on 21 November 2022
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 48619/13
Andrey Aleksandrovich NOS against Russia and Ukraine
and 8 other applications
(see list appended)
communicated on 28 October 2022
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applications originate from the conflict between Ukraine and the Russian Federation when the Russian Federation asserted jurisdiction over Crimea in 2014.
The applications concern, in particular, the alleged ill-treatment to which the applicants or their relatives were subjected.
Most applications, in particular applications nos. 38570/15, 2672/16, 2712/16, 72577/17, 27340/18, 7865/19 and 48492/18, concern the alleged ill‑treatment to which the applicants were subjected in the course of their arrest or detention and the alleged lack of an effective investigation into their complaints, except for application no. 2672/16. In that case the applicant does not complain about the lack of an effective investigation. Also, he has not exhausted any domestic remedies and alleges that an administrative practice of ill-treatment existed in the territory of Crimea, arguing that no remedies are available in that situation. The applicants have also made the following additional complaints.
Application no. 38570/15 also concerns the lack of medical treatment in respect of the injuries sustained by the applicant as a result of the alleged ill‑treatment.
Applications nos. 48619/13 and 5839/19 concern the lack of medical treatment in detention in respect of the applicants’ medical problems, namely Hepatitis B and retinal tear.
In addition, the applicants in applications nos. 48619/13, 38570/15, 48492/18, 2672/16, 2712/16, 72577/17, 7865/19 complain that their detention was contrary to Article 5 of the Convention. The applicant in application no. 5839/19 complains that his detention pending removal and review of that detention were in breach of Article 5 of the Convention.
QUESTIONS TO THE UKRAINIAN AND RUSSIAN GOVERNMENTS AND TO THE APPLICANTS IN APPLICATIONS NOS. 48619/13, 38570/15 AND 72577/17
1. Have the applicants in the above four applications complied with the admissibility requirements set forth in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?
2. Have the applicants been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?
3. Having regard to the procedural protection from inhuman or degrading treatment (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000-IV), has the investigation by the authorities complied with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention?
4. Did the applicants in applications nos. 48619/13 and 72577/17 have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Article 3, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
5. Have the applicants been deprived of their liberty in breach of Article 5 of the Convention?
6. In application no. 72577/17, has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life and/or home, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2 (see Kruglov and Others v. Russia, nos. 11264/04 and 15 others, §§ 123-38, 4 February 2020)?
7. Were the restrictions allegedly imposed by the respondent Governments on the applicant in application no. 38570/15, purportedly pursuant to Article 5 of the Convention, applied for a purpose other than those envisaged by that provision, contrary to Article 18 of the Convention?
8. Has the applicant in application no. 72577/17 been subjected to discrimination in the enjoyment of his right to freedom of religion within the meaning of Article 9 of the Convention, contrary to Article 14?
9. Did the relevant provisions on the basis of which the applicants in application no. 38570/15 were convicted fulfil the qualitative requirements as established in the Court’s case-law under Article 7 of the Convention (see Scoppola v. Italy (no. 2) [GC], no. 10249/03, § 99, 17 September 2009)?
QUESTIONS TO THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT AND TO THE APPLICANTS IN APPLICATIONS NOS. 2672/16, 2712/16, 27340/18, 48492/18, 5839/19 AND 7865/19
1. Have the applicants in the above six applications complied with the admissibility requirements set forth in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?
2. Have the applicants been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?
3. Having regard to the procedural protection from inhuman or degrading treatment (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000-IV), has the investigation by the authorities in applications nos. 2712/16, 27340/18, 48492/18 and 7865/19 complied with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention?
4. Did the applicants in applications nos. 2672/16, 2712/16, 27340/18 and 48492/19 have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Article 3, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
5. Have the applicants in applications nos. 2672/16, 2712/16, 48492/18, 5839/19 and 7865/19 been deprived of their liberty in breach of Article 5 of the Convention?
6. In application no. 5839/19 has the applicant’s detention pending removal been justified within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention (see Azimov v. Russia, no. 67474/11, §§ 160-74, 18 April 2013)?
7. Did the length of the proceedings in application no. 5839/19, by which the applicant sought to challenge the lawfulness of his detention, comply with the “speed” requirement of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (see Idalov v. Russia, no. 5826/03, §§ 154-58, 22 May 2012)?
8. In application no. 2712/16 has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for private life and/or home, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2 (see Kruglov and Others v. Russia, nos. 11264/04 and 15 others, §§ 123-38, 4 February 2020)?
9. In applications nos. 27340/18 and 5839/19, were the applicants’ transfer from the territory of Crimea to the special detention centre in the territory of Russia in breach of Article 8 of the Convention and/or Article 3 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention?
10. Were the restrictions imposed by the respondent Government in application no. 7865/19, purportedly pursuant to Article 5 of the Convention, applied for a purpose other than those envisaged by that provision, contrary to Article 18 of the Convention?
11. Was the Russian criminal legislation published and made publicly available in the territory of Crimea? Did – and if so, how – the Russian Federation made Russian criminal legislation available to non-Russian speaking inhabitants (Ukrainians and Tatars) of Crimea?
12. Did the relevant provisions on the basis of which the applicants in applications nos. 27340/18, 7865/19 were convicted fulfil the qualitative requirements as established in the Court’s case-law under Article 7 of the Convention (see Scoppola v. Italy (no. 2) [GC], no. 10249/03, § 99, 17 September 2009)?
APPENDIX
No.
Application no.
Case name
Lodged on
Applicant
Year of Birth
Place of Residence
Nationality
Represented by
1.
48619/13
Nos
v. Russia and Ukraine
27/07/2013
Andrey Aleksandrovich NOS
1971
Ukrainian
(died in 2016)
Legal heirs:
Tvitkova
Yuliya Vitaliyivna
Nos
Nikita Andriyovych
Sergiy Anatoliyovych ZAYETS
2.
38570/15
Kostenko
v. Russia and Ukraine
28/07/2015
Oleksandr Fedorovych KOSTENKO
1986
Simferopol
Ukrainian
Yegor Leonidovych BOYCHENKO
3.
2672/16
Potapov
v. Russia
25/12/2015
Oleksiy Mykolayovych POTAPOV
1976
Kyiv
Ukrainian
4.
2712/16
Kuku
v. Russia
23/12/2015
Emir-Usein Kemalovich KUKU
1976
Yalta
Ukrainian
Yevgeniya Aleksandrovna ZAKREVSKAYA
5.
72577/17
Minadirov
v. Ukraine and Russia
25/09/2017
Damir Ablyakimovich MINADIROV
1989
Kyiv
Ukrainian
Yevgeniya Aleksandrovna ZAKREVSKAYA
6.
27340/18
Shabliy
v. Russia
31/05/2018
Gleb Fedorovych SHABLIY
1975
Sevastopol
Ukrainian
Anastasiya Romanivna MARTYNOVSKA
7.
48492/18
Paralamov
v. Russia
03/10/2018
Rinat Rasimovich
PARALAMOV
1986
Nyzhnegorsk
Ukrainian
Anastasiya Romanivna MARTYNOVSKA
8.
5839/19
Kolpenskiy
v. Russia
29/12/2018
Anatoliy Nikolayevich KOLPENSKIY
1976
Sebastopol
Ukrainian
Olga Pavlovna TSEYTLINA
9.
7865/19
Panov
v. Russia
11/01/2019
Yevgen Oleksandrovych PANOV
1977
Energodar
Ukrainian
Anastasiya Romanivna MARTYNOVSKA