Published on 26 February 2024
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 7369/15
Vitaliy Vasylyovych YERYOMENKO
against Ukraine and Russia
lodged on 30 January 2015
communicated on 7 February 2024
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application originates from the conflict between Ukraine and the Russian Federation when the latter asserted its jurisdiction over Crimea in 2014.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. The applicant, a Ukrainian national, was convicted in 2013 by the Leninskyy District Court of Sevastopol. He appealed. After Russia asserted its jurisdiction over Crimea in 2014, the “Sevastopol Court of Appeal” rejected the appeal and maintained the applicant’s sentence, but under Russian law. On 10 December 2014 the applicant was released on parole by Russia and moved to the territory controlled by the Ukrainian authorities. The criminal proceeding against him was still open in Ukraine because his conviction in Ukraine had never become final and the appeal proceeding had not been possible since the case materials remained in Crimea.
In an attempt to end his legally uncertain status, the applicant applied for an amnesty. His amnesty request was denied on three occasions by courts in Ukraine for various reasons. On 4 July 2017 the Higher Specialised Court of Ukraine for Civil and Criminal Cases considered that the Amnesty Act could not be applied to the applicant due to the fact that his conviction had never become final.
The applicant complains under Article 5 of the Convention that the Russian Federation did not have jurisdiction to continue to detain him for an alleged criminal offence that had taken place before 2014, namely before Russia asserted jurisdiction over Crimea.
In his complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention the applicant alleges that the Russian court reviewing his case on appeal was not an independent and impartial tribunal established by law and that it applied substantive and procedural laws of Russia, in violation of Ukrainian law.
Relying on Article 2 § 1 of Protocol No. 7 and Article 8 of the Convention the applicant argues that Ukraine is responsible for his legally uncertain status, as it does not have procedures allowing him to challenge it and has denied him amnesty.
QUESTIONS TO THE APPLICANT AND THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT
1. Has the applicant complied with the admissibility requirements set forth in Article 35 of the Convention?
2. Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?
3. To that end, did the decisions taken by the courts in the applicant’s case 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)?
4. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
5. Did the relevant provisions on the basis of which the applicant was convicted 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)?
6. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his Convention complaints, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
7. Finally, did the alleged acts which gave rise to the applicant’s complaints have a basis in “law” within the meaning of the Convention provisions relied on by them?
QUESTIONS TO THE APPLICANT AND THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT
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 the applicant’s right to respect for his private and family life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention?
3. Has the applicant been afforded the right of appeal guaranteed by Article 2 § 1 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention, on account of the impossibility to have his appeal examined?
4. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his Convention complaints, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?