Published on 21 November 2022
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 7940/16
Lyudmila Ivanovna SHABANOVA against Russia and Ukraine
and 5 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 their jurisdiction over Crimea in 2014.
The main issue which is raised by the applicants in these applications pertains to non-enforcement on the Crimean territory of the national courts’ judgments holding in their favour. In applications nos. 52964/16, 14016/17, 73806/16 and 33200/18 the judgments in question had been handed down by the Ukrainian courts located on the territory of Crimea before the Russian Federation asserted their jurisdiction. In applications nos. 7940/16 and 50445/16 the judgments had been delivered by the Ukrainian courts located outside the Crimean territory after the Russian Federation had asserted their jurisdiction.
The applicants’ main complaint concerns the failure of the Russian and/or Ukrainian authorities to enforce the above-mentioned courts’ judgments delivered in their favour. Additionally, the applicants complain about an alleged interference with their right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions and also about the alleged absence of effective domestic remedies in respect of their aforementioned complaints.
.
QUESTIONS TO THE UKRAINIAN AND RUSSIAN GOVERNMENTS AND TO THE APPLICANT IN APPLICATION No. 50445/16
1. Has the applicant complied with the admissibility requirements set forth in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?
2. Has there been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the alleged non-enforcement of the judgment in the applicant’s case?
3. Has there been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the alleged failure to enforce that judgment?
4. Has there been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in the present case? In particular, did the applicant have an effective domestic remedy in respect of the aforementioned alleged failure to enforce the judgment in a timely manner?
QUESTIONS TO THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT AND TO THE APPLICANTS IN APPLICATIONS Nos. 7940/16, 52964/16, 73806/16, 14016/17 AND 33200/18
1. Have the applicants complied with the admissibility requirements set forth in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?
2. Has there been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the alleged non-enforcement of the judgments in the applicants’ cases?
3. Has there been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the alleged failure to enforce the judgments?
4. Has there been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in the present cases? In particular, did the applicants have an effective domestic remedy in respect of the aforementioned alleged failure to enforce the judgments in a timely manner?
APPENDIX
No.
Application no.
Case name
Lodged on
Applicant
Year of Birth
Place of Residence
Nationality
Represented by
1.
7940/16
Shabanova v. Russia and Ukraine
26/01/2016
Lyudmila Ivanovna SHABANOVA
1952
Frunze
Ukrainian
2.
50445/16
Voronova v. Russia and Ukraine
12/08/2016
Valentyna Dmytrivna VORONOVA
1949
Kharkiv
Ukrainian
Andriy Anatoliyovych KRISTENKO
3.
52964/16
Kiselev and Others v. Russia
01/11/2016
Andrey Aleksandrovich KISELEV
1967
Simferopol
Ukrainian
Dariya Andreyevna KRET
1985
Simferopol
Ukrainian
Nataliya Vasilyevna KRET
1966
Simferopol
Ukrainian
4.
73806/16
Gusev and Guseva v. Russia
24/11/2016
Vladimir Lvovich GUSEV
1961
Simferopol
Russian, Ukrainian
Darya Vladimirovna GUSEVA
1992
Simferopol
Russian, Ukrainian
5.
14016/17
Lopatin v. Russia
08/02/2017
Vladimir Yulyevich LOPATIN
1955
Moscow
Russian, Ukrainian
6.
33200/18
Shchur v. Russia
29/06/2018
Mykhaylo Oleksiyovych SHCHUR
1964
Ruchyi
Ukrainian