Published on 15 January 2024
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 26786/16
Oleg Leonidovich TARANOVSKIY against Russia
and 2 other applications
(see list appended)
communicated on 19 December 2023
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applications originate from the conflict between Ukraine and the Russian Federation when the latter asserted its jurisdiction over Crimea in 2014. They concern the allegedly unlawful criminal conviction and detention of the applicants.
The common complaint which is raised by all the applicants pertains to the applicability of Russian legislation in Crimea and jurisdiction of the Russian courts in Crimea to examine the criminal cases against them. All applicants were prosecuted for criminal offences that had allegedly taken place before 2014, namely before Russia asserted jurisdiction over Crimea. The applicant in application no. 5838/17 was convicted by Ukrainian courts but his case was subsequently re-considered by Russian courts. The applicants in application nos. 26786/16 and 21415/19 were convicted only by the Russian courts after 18 March 2014.
In their complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention the applicants allege that the courts in Crimea examining their cases were not independent and impartial tribunals established by law and that those courts applied substantive and procedural laws of Russia, in violation of Ukrainian law and international law. In addition, the applicant in application no. 5838/17 argues under Article 5 § 1(a) that his detention was unlawful.
Finally, in his complaint under Article 7, the applicant in application no. 26786/16 claims that he was convicted under the Russian Criminal Code to a heavier sanction than the one provided in the Ukrainian Criminal Code in force at the time of the commission of crime. In application no. 21415/19 the applicant claims that his actions did not constitute crimes under Ukrainian legislation.
QUESTIONS TO THE APPLICANTS AND THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT
1. Have the applicants complied with the admissibility requirements set forth in Article 35 of the Convention?
2. Was the applicant in application no. 5838/17 deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?
To that end, did the decisions taken by the courts in the applicant’s case in application no. 5838/17 comply with the requirement of lawfulness within the meaning of Article 5 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Mozer v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 11138/10, § 150, 23 February 2016)?
3. Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against them by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
4. Did the relevant provisions on the basis of which the applicants were convicted, except for the applicant in application no. 5838/17 who did not invoke this provision, fulfil the qualitative requirements as have been set out 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)?
5. Finally, did the alleged acts which gave rise to the applicants’ complaints have a basis in “law” within the meaning of the Convention provisions relied on by them?
APPENDIX
List of applications:
No.
Application no.
Case name
Lodged on
Applicant
Year of Birth
Nationality
Represented by
1.
26786/16
Taranovskiy v. Russia
01/06/2016
Oleg Leonidovich TARANOVSKIY
1963
German, Ukrainian
Vladislav Valeriyovych AVDEYENKO
2.
5838/17
Kudelya v. Russia
26/12/2016
Vitaliy Gennadyevich KUDELYA
1986
Ukrainian
3.
21415/19
Gorelikov v. Russia
11/04/2019
Vladimir Nikolayevich GORELIKOV
1952
Russian, Ukrainian
Aleksey Nikolayevich KHARCHENKO