CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECGRANDCHAMBER;ENG — 16 décembre 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sA96A60C8 { margin:8pt 28.35pt 3pt 17pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:12pt } .sA101A847 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s659CE682 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s1A94BD05 { margin:0pt 28.35pt 3pt 34pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:12pt } .sF8E673C8 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase; color:#0069d6 } .s695099B3 { width:10.89pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s3F015572 { margin:0pt 28.35pt 3pt 51pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:12pt } .sB6D33163 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s833B1EA7 { width:7.55pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sD06D394E { margin:0pt 28.35pt 3pt 68.05pt; text-indent:-17pt; line-height:12pt } .sD46FFE5D { width:8.66pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s70E0A597 { margin:0pt 28.35pt 3pt 85.05pt; text-indent:-17pt; line-height:12pt } .s554D0A64 { width:4.78pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s72A8FB50 { width:5.34pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sC83D396C { width:7.56pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sEAB539EC { width:7.83pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s4859184F { width:7pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sC15FC45D { width:3.55pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sB12058F2 { width:8.11pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sDF290AB { width:6.61pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s5336AA44 { margin:0pt 28.35pt 3pt 102.05pt; text-indent:-17pt; line-height:12pt } .s8E0B8B88 { width:8.12pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sF53451E7 { width:5.9pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sD76C0840 { margin:0pt 28.35pt 3pt 119.05pt; text-indent:-17pt; line-height:12pt } .s31A6B95 { width:4.56pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sC9B5F0A5 { width:4.59pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s34F36F31 { width:3.1pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s373BA413 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:63.8pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-63.8pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s45CBDCE6 { width:38.46pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s1D12B4DC { width:40.46pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s8A999BD3 { width:39.8pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s3130C6B5 { width:31.13pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s600743B5 { width:34.47pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s203B65C7 { width:17.81pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s107E1ECD { width:45.8pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sF7A5129 { width:19.8pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s895B65A1 { width:29.79pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sB6535A8E { width:31.12pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s1C7574CF { width:37.8pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s75DE0200 { width:39.13pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sACBC61AB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt; text-align:justify } .sE0372AB5 { width:21.8pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s590A3EF4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-19.85pt } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .s565D2543 { width:207.31pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sFDDE2C61 { width:159.3pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s92FE4647 { width:165.97pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sBE145EB9 { width:213.3pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sB735A5B5 { width:176.65pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s9CEEC02A { width:205.98pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s586AA269 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:8.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s8B983D37 { text-transform:none } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s8C49A017 { margin-left:5.65pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s8BF9F9FB { width:7.06pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sB9541D82 { font-family:Arial; color:#212121 } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sCD7D0356 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:4.85pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s5710C2C8 { font-family:Arial; vertical-align:6.5pt } .sCBF2D345 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:8.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sEB4DEF1F { font-family:Arial; color:#161616 } .s17464775 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#161616 } .s2044A09A { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sC47DA4E2 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.51pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7CAC83C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:19.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sB3F5D3E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s81EF3014 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sB25A0399 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:24.84pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.66pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sC7F250FD { font-style:normal } .s6A9CB673 { font-size:11pt; font-style:normal } .s807BA660 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:24.16pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.34pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sC66C6FB1 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.51pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s8E1F03D8 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .sF9B3189B { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .sCD82236A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s9D6A1226 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s55F67FD3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .sA6765C01 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-11.3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sFA550501 { width:6.3pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s9DABDD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:13pt } .s695E2BCF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-19.8pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s16F6432D { width:7.9pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFABD3260 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-19.8pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sFF8BF293 { width:8.05pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s5E996D43 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s17E903BE { width:3.01pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sF267204E { width:5.67pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s9A6E8000 { width:6.34pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s824768DF { width:1.01pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4D75056D { width:40.36pt; display:inline-block } .s67CF18CE { width:148.91pt; display:inline-block } .s5C148630 { width:171.61pt; display:inline-block }       GRAND CHAMBER     DECISION     Applications nos. 20958/14 and 38334/18 UKRAINE v. RUSSIA ( RE CRIMEA)                       STRASBOURG 16 December 2020       TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS PROCEDURE THE FACTS I.   The applicant Government A.   Evidentiary material submitted by the applicant Government 1.   Witness statements 2.   Official documents emanating from the Ukrainian national authorities 3.   Various other documents 4.   CCTV footage and other visual materials B.   The facts of the case as submitted by the applicant Government 1.   The evidence of effective control (a)   Background (b)   Seizure of control over Crimea (26 and 27 February 2014) (c)   The immediate aftermath of the “invasion” (d)   Consolidation of control over Crimea (1 to 16 March 2014) (e)   “The annexation of Crimea and the referendum” (f)   Chronological list of troop movements and deployment of military equipment in Crimea 2.   Alleged violations of the Convention (a)   The first phase (17 February to 21 March 2014) (b)   The second phase (after 21 March 2014) II.   The respondent Government A.   Evidentiary material submitted by the respondent Government 1.   Official documents emanating from the Russian national authorities 2.   Official documents emanating from the Ukrainian national authorities 3.   International materials 4.   Crimean documents 5.   Various media articles and videos B.   The facts of the case as submitted by the respondent Government 1.   Background 2.   Developments leading up to the “referendum”, the “referendum” and its aftermath 3.   Incidents alleged by the Ukrainian Government RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK I.   DOMESTIC LAW A.   Constitution of Ukraine B.   Resolution on the use of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation on the territory of Ukraine, adopted on 1 March 2014 by the Federation Council of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, No. 48-SF C.   Federal Law of the Russian Federation terminating the Agreements on the presence of the Black Sea Fleet of the Russian Federation on the territory of Ukraine (No. 38-FZ) II.   RELEVANT BILATERAL AGREEMENTS BETWEEN UKRAINE AND THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION A.   Treaty on friendship, cooperation and partnership between Ukraine and the Russian Federation of 31 May 1997 B.   Bilateral agreements concluded between Ukraine and the Russian Federation in 1997 and 2010 regarding the presence of the Black Sea Fleet of the Russian Federation on the territory of Ukraine 1.   Agreement between the Russian Federation and Ukraine on the Status and Conditions of the Presence of the Black Sea Fleet of the Russian Federation on the territory of Ukraine 2.   Agreement between the Russian Federation and Ukraine on the Parameters of the Division of the Black Sea Fleet 3.   Agreement between the Russian Federation and Ukraine on the Presence of the Black Sea Fleet of the Russian Federation on the Territory of Ukraine III.   “Treaty between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Crimea on the Accession of the Republic of Crimea to the Russian Federation and the Formation of New Constituent Entities of the Federation, signed on 18 March 2014 and ratified by the Russian State Duma on 21 March 2014” (“the Accession Treaty”) IV.   MULTILATERAL TEXTS AND RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL CASE-LAW AND PRACTICE A.   Memorandum on Security Assurances in connection with Ukraine’s accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, Budapest, 5 December 1994 B.   UN General Assembly Resolutions 1.   Resolution no. 68/262 of 27   March 2014 on the territorial integrity of Ukraine (A/RES/68/262) 2.   Resolution no. 71/205 on the situation of human rights in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol (Ukraine), adopted on 19 December 2016 (A/RES/71/205) C.   Instruments of the Council of Europe 1.   Resolutions of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (a)   Resolution 1988(2014) on recent developments in Ukraine: threats to the functioning of democratic institutions, adopted on 9 April 2014 (b)   Resolution 2133 (2016) on legal remedies for human rights violations on the Ukrainian territories outside the control of the Ukrainian authorities, adopted on 12 October 2016 2.   Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe Decision regarding the situation in Ukraine (CM/Del/Dec(2014)1196/1.8) of 2   April 2014 D.   Council of the European Union Decision concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, 17 March 2014 (2014/145/CFSP) E.   Case-law of the International Court of Justice 1.   Political implications/motivation (a)   Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v.   United States of America), Jurisdiction and Admissibility (Judgment, ICJ Reports 1984, p. 392) (b)   Advisory Opinion in Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, ICJ   Reports 1996, p. 234 2.   Probative value of certain types of evidence 3.   Application of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Ukraine v.   the Russian Federation), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, ICJ, 8   November 2019, at pp. 21 and 46 F.   Office of the Prosecutor, International Criminal Court, Report on Preliminary Examination Activities 2019, 5 December 2019 V.   OTHER MATERIALS A.   Relevant reports of intergovernmental organisations 1.   Reports of UN (treaty) bodies (a)   UN Human Rights Committee (HRC) UN HRC, Concluding Observations on the seventh periodic report of the Russian Federation, CCPR/C/RUS/CO/07, 28 April 2015 (b)   UN Committee against Torture Committee against Torture, Concluding Observations on the sixth periodic report of the Russian Federation, CAT/C/RUS/CO/6, 28   August 2018 2.   Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Report on the situation of human rights in the temporarily occupied Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol (Ukraine), dated 25 September 2017, covering the period from 22   February 2014 to 12   September 2017 (“the OHCHR 2017 Report”) 3.   Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe Report following the Commissioner’s Mission in Kyiv, Moscow and Crimea from 7 to 12 September 2014 (“the Commissioner’s Report”) 4.   Reports of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) and the OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities (HCNM) (a)   Human Rights Assessment in Ukraine, The Hague/Warsaw, 12 May 2014 (b)   Report of the Human Rights Assessment Mission on Crimea (6–18 July 2015), 17 September 2015 B.   Relevant reports of non-governmental organisations 1.   Human Rights Watch, “Rights in Retreat: Abuses in Crimea” November 2014 2.   Amnesty International “One Year On: Violations of the Rights to Freedom of Expression, Assembly and Association in Crimea”, report published in 2015 COMPLAINTS THE LAW I.   Scope of the case A.   Object of the case before the Court B.   Scope of the complaints before the Court II.   APPROACH TO THE EVIDENCE A.   Types of evidence examined B.   Principles of assessment of the evidence 1.   The parties’ submissions 2.   The Court’s assessment (a)   Burden of proof (b)   Standard of proof (i)   As to the alleged existence of an “administrative practice” (ii)   As to the jurisdictional issues III.   ALLEGED LACK OF A GENUINE APPLICATION A.   The parties’ submissions 1.   The respondent Government 2.   The applicant Government B.   The Court’s assessment IV.   JURISDICTION OF THE RESPONDENT STATE REGARDING THE EVENTS COMPLAINED OF BY THE APPLICANT GOVERNMENT A.   The parties’ submissions 1.   The respondent Government 2.   The applicant Government B.   The third-party intervener (McGill Centre for Human Rights and Legal Pluralism, Faculty of Law, McGill University, Canada) C.   The Court’s assessment 1.   General principles 2.   Application to the present case (a)   As to the period from 27 February to 18 March 2014 (i)   General remarks (ii)   “Effective control” of Crimea Military presence of the respondent State in Crimea (b)   As to the period after 18 March 2014 (c)   “State agent authority” jurisdiction (d)   Conclusion V.   EXHAUSTION OF DOMESTIC REMEDIES AND ALLEGED EXISTENCE OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE A.   The parties’ submissions 1.   The respondent Government 2.   The applicant Government B.   The Court’s assessment VI.   ADMISSIBILITY OF THE COMPLAINTS OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE A.   General remarks as to the evidence 1.   The parties’ submissions (a)   The respondent Government (b)   The applicant Government 2.   The Court’s assessment B.   Prima facie evidence of an administrative practice complained of by the applicant Government 1.   Article 2 complaints (a)   Alleged administrative practice of substantive violations of Article 2 of the Convention (i)   The parties’ submissions (ii)   The Court’s assessment (α)   As to the alleged administrative practice of killing and shooting (β)   As to the alleged administrative practice in respect of disappearances (b)   Alleged administrative practice of a lack of an effective investigation (i)   The parties’ submissions (ii)   The Court’s assessment 2.   Complaints under Articles 3 and 5 (a)   The parties’ submissions (i)   The applicant Government (ii)   The respondent Government (b)   The Court’s assessment 3.   Article 6 complaint (a)   The parties’ submissions (b)   The Court’s assessment 4.   Article 8 complaints (a)   “Unlawful automatic imposition of Russian citizenship” (i)   The parties’ submissions (ii)   The Court’s assessment (b)   “Transfer of convicts to the territory of the Russian Federation” (i)   The parties’ submissions (ii)   The Court’s assessment (c)   “Arbitrary raids of private dwelling houses” (i)   The parties’ submissions (ii)   The Court’s assessment 5.   Article 9 complaints (a)   The parties’ submissions (b)   The Court’s assessment 6.   Article 10 complaints (a)   “Suppression of non-Russian media, including the closure of Ukrainian and Tatar television stations” (i)   The parties’ submissions (ii)   The Court’s assessment (b)   “Apprehension and intimidation of, and seizure of material from, international journalists” (i)   The parties’ submissions (ii)   The Court’s assessment 7.   Article 11 complaints (a)   The parties’ submissions (b)   The Court’s assessment 8.   Complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (a)   The parties’ submissions (b)   The Court’s assessment 9.   Complaints under Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (a)   The parties’ submissions (b)   The Court’s assessment 10.   Complaint under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 (a)   The parties’ submissions (b)   The Court’s assessment 11.   Complaints under Article 14, taken in conjunction with Articles 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Convention and with Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention (a)   The parties’ submissions (b)   The Court’s assessment For these reasons, the Court, by a majority   LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ARC   Autonomous Republic of Crimea BSF   Black Sea Fleet BTR   Armoured personnel carrier CSDF   Crimean Self-Defence Forces FSB   Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation HRC   United Nations Human Rights Committee HRMMU   United Nations Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine ICJ   International Court of Justice OHCHR   Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights OSCE   Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe PACE   Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe SAM   Surface-to-air missile VDK   Landing craft (BDK in Russian) VDV   Russian Airborne Troops The European Court of Human Rights, sitting on 16 December 2020 as a Grand Chamber composed of: Robert Spano, President ,   Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos,   Jon Fridrik Kjølbro,   Ksenija Turković,   Angelika Nußberger,   Síofra O’Leary,   Vincent A. De Gaetano,   Ganna Yudkivska,   Aleš Pejchal,   Krzysztof Wojtyczek,   Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström,   Pere Pastor Vilanova,   Tim Eicke,   Latif Hüseynov,   Jovan Ilievski,   Gilberto Felici, judges ,   Bakhtiyar Tuzmukhamedov, ad hoc judge , and Søren Prebensen, Deputy Grand Chamber Registrar , Having deliberated in private on   11 September 2019, 28 September 2020 and 16 December 2020, and adopted its decision in full on the last ‑ mentioned date, Decides as follows: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in two applications (nos. 20958/14 and 42410/15) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 33 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by Ukraine on 13 March 2014 and 26   August 2015 respectively. Both applications concerned events in Crimea (for the purposes of the present decision, “Crimea” refers to both the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (ARC) and the City of Sevastopol) and Eastern Ukraine. 2.     The applications were assigned to the Third and First Sections of the Court respectively, pursuant to Rule 51   § 1 of the Rules of Court. Subsequently, application no. 20958/14 was transferred to the First Section of the Court. 3.   The   Ukrainian Government (“the applicant Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Ivan Lishchyna, Representative of the Ukrainian Government at the European Court of Human Rights and Deputy Minister of Justice of Ukraine. 4.     The   Russian Government (“the respondent Government”) were initially represented by their former Agent, Mr Georgy Matyushkin, who was succeeded by their current Agent, Mr Mikhail Galperin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights and Deputy Minister of Justice of the Russian Federation. 5.     On 13 March 2014 the President of the Third Section decided to indicate an interim measure under Rule 39 calling upon both the High Contracting Parties concerned to refrain from taking any measures, in particular military action, which might entail breaches of the Convention rights of the civilian population, including putting their life and health at risk, and to comply with their engagements under the Convention, notably in respect of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. 6.     The same day it was also decided to give the case priority under Rule   41. 7.     As far as events in Crimea are concerned, the applicant Government maintained that from 27 February 2014 the Russian Federation had exercised extraterritorial jurisdiction over Crimea and had been responsible for an administrative practice entailing numerous violations of the Convention. The applicant Government relied on several Articles of the Convention, in particular Article 2 (right to life), Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman treatment and torture), Article 5 (right to liberty and security), Article 6 (right to a fair trial), Article 8 (right to respect for private life), Article 9 (freedom of religion), Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 11 (freedom of assembly). They also complained under Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (right to education) and Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 (freedom of movement). 8.     On 20 November 2014 and 29 September 2015 the respondent Government were given notice of the applications and were invited to submit observations on the admissibility of the complaints before the Chamber. After the time-limit for doing so had been extended, the respondent Government filed their observations on 31 December 2015 and 22 January 2016, and the applicant Government submitted their observations in reply on 23 March 2017.   In addition, third-party comments were received from the McGill Centre for Human Rights and Legal Pluralism, Faculty of Law, McGill University, Canada, which had been given leave by the President to intervene in the written procedure (Article   36 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 44 § 3). 9.     On 9 February and 29 November 2016 the Chamber divided application nos. 20958/14 and 42410/14 into four separate cases. All complaints concerning events in Crimea remained registered under the above case numbers, while the complaints concerning events in Eastern Ukraine were registered under different case numbers. 10.     On 20 February 2018 a Chamber of the First Section composed of Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos, President, Kristina Pardalos, Ganna Yudkivska, Robert Spano, Aleš Pejchal, Dmitry Dedov and Jovan Ilievski, judges, assisted by Abel Campos, Section Registrar, decided to give notice to the parties of its intention to relinquish jurisdiction to deal with the case in favour of the Grand Chamber. On 7 May 2018 the aforementioned Chamber decided to relinquish jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber, having regard to the fact that neither party had objected to such relinquishment (Article 30 of the Convention and Rule   72 §§   1 and 4). 11.     On 11 June 2018 the two applications were joined, under Rule 42 §   1, and given the new name Ukraine v. Russia ( re   Crimea) under application no.   20958/14. 12.     On 27 July 2018 the Court decided, under Rule 51 § 3, to obtain the parties’ written and oral submissions on the admissibility of the case. The parties were instructed that their memorial on the admissibility of the case “must constitute an exhaustive outline of the party’s position on the complaints raised”. The Court set the date of the hearing for 27 February 2019 and also invited the parties to reply in writing to a list of questions before the date of the hearing. 13.     The applicant Government and the respondent Government each filed observations on the admissibility of the complaints before the Grand Chamber (“memorials”). 14.     Dmitry Dedov, the judge elected in respect of the Russian Federation, withdrew from sitting in the case as from 1 January 2019 (Rule 28). In accordance with Rule 29, the President decided to appoint Bakhtiyar Tuzmukhamedov, as of 1 January 2019, to sit as an ad hoc judge in the case to replace Judge Dedov. 15.     On 21 January 2019 the Grand Chamber rejected, under Rule 71 § 1 and, mutatis mutandis , Rule 28 § 4, a challenge by the respondent Government to the capacity of Judge Ganna Yudkivska to sit in the Grand Chamber in the present case. 16.     On 11 February 2019, ruling on a request by the ad hoc judge Bakhtiyar Tuzmukhamedov under Rule 28 § 4, the Grand Chamber held that certain articles published in the press under his authorship were not objectively capable of adversely affecting his impartiality in the present case (Rule 28 § 2 (d)). 17.     On 12 August 2019, in reply to a question by the respondent Government about the continued participation in the proceedings of Judge Ganna Yudkivska in view of the expiry of her term of office, the President of the Court ruled that there were no grounds under Article 23 of the Convention and Rule 28 which could justify her withdrawing from the case. 18.     After the adjournment of the hearing scheduled for 27 February 2019, the President of the Grand Chamber set the new date of the hearing for 11 September 2019. 19.     The composition of the Grand Chamber was determined in accordance with the provisions of Article 26 §§ 4 and 5 of the Convention and Rule 24. 20.     A hearing on admissibility took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 11 September 2019 (Rule 71 § 1 and, mutatis mutandis , Rule 51 § 5). 21.     There appeared before the Court: (a)     for the respondent Government Mr Mikhail Galperin ,   Agent , Mr Michael Swainston QC,   Counsel , Ms Iana Borisova , Mr Pavel Smirnov , Mr Edward Harrison , Mr Vasily Torkanovskiy , Ms Sofia Sarenkova , Mr Vadim Zapivakhin , Mr Grigory Prozukin , Ms Mariia Zinoveva , Ms Alana Siukaeva , Ms Kseniia Soloveva , Ms Valeriia Grishchenko ,   Advisers ; (b)     for the applicant Government Mr Ivan Lishchyna ,   Agent , Mr Ben Emmerson QC,   Counsel , Ms Marharyta Sokorenko , Mr Dmytrii Petryshyn , Mr Andrii Luksha ,   Advisers .   22.     The Court heard addresses by Mr Galperin and Mr Swainston for the respondent Government, and by Mr Lishchyna and Mr Emmerson for the applicant Government, and their replies to questions put by the judges. THE FACTS 23.     The facts as presented by the applicant Government are set out in Section I below (paragraphs 24-141) and those as presented by the respondent Government in Section II below (paragraphs   142-97). THE APPLICANT GOVERNMENT Evidentiary material submitted by the applicant Government 24.     In support of their submissions, the applicant Government relied on various documents and other evidence. The relevant parts of some of the reports published by various intergovernmental and non-governmental organisations referred to by the applicant Government are reproduced under “V. Other materials” below (see paragraphs 225-32). A number of bilateral agreements signed between Ukraine and the Russian Federation concerning the presence of the Black Sea Fleet (BSF) of the Russian Federation on the territory of Ukraine are summarised under “II. Relevant bilateral agreements between Ukraine and the Russian Federation” (see paragraphs 201-08 below). 25.     The remaining items of documentary evidence relied on by the applicant Government in their submissions are listed immediately below, namely witness statements (see paragraphs 26-27 below); official documents emanating from the Ukrainian national authorities (see   paragraph 28 below); various other documents (see   paragraph 29   below); and CCTV footage and other visual materials (see   paragraph 30   below). It is to be noted that, unless otherwise specified, unnamed or unidentifiable materials (such as articles, internet links, etc.) are not listed below. Witness statements 26.     Some of the witnesses’ statements relied on by the applicant Government were made in March 2017, specifically for the purpose of supporting the present application. They were taken by the Office of the Agent of the Ukrainian Government before the Court and included the statements made by the following persons: i.     Ihor Voronchenko, deputy commander of the Naval Forces of the Armed Forces of Ukraine for Coastal Defence at the time of the events; ii.     Anatoliy Burgomistrenko, captain of the first rank of the Naval Forces of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and Chief of the Intelligence Headquarters of the Naval Command of the Armed Forces of Ukraine; iii.     Oleksandr Kalachov, a captain in Military Unit 1145 of the Naval Forces of the Armed Forces of Ukraine; iv.     Refat Chubarov, Chairman of the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people; v.     Alona Kushnova, judge in the District Administrative Court of the ARC in Simferopol at the time of the events; vi.     Yaroslav Pilunskii, a cinematographer, co-founder of the “Vavylon 13” organisation (association of directors, operators and cinematographers); vii.     Andrii Shchekun, an organiser of the “Euromaidan Crimea” movement; viii.     Anatolii Kovalskii, former member of the Crimean Council of Ministers; ix.     Viktor Get, Head of the Counterintelligence Department of the Security Service of Ukraine in Crimea at the time of the events; x.     Mykhaylo Koval, Director of the Department of Personnel of the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine at the time of the events; xi.     Yulii Mamchur, a former commander of the 204 th Tactical Aviation Brigade named after Alexander Pokryshkin   ̶ the Air Combat of the Air Command “South” of the Air Forces of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, military unit A 4515; xii.     Olena Maksymenko, a journalist, photographer and writer; xiii.   Dmitriy Delyatytskyy, colonel, commander of the First Separate Battalion of the Marine Corps in Feodosiya, the ARC, at the time of the events; xiv.     Vladyslav Polishchuk, who describes himself in his witness statement as “an active participant in the Revolution of Dignity”; xv.     Dmytro Malitskii, Military Commissar of the ARC with the military rank of colonel at the time of the events; and xvi.     Andrii Senchenko, member of the Batkivshchyna Party, former Member of Parliament of Ukraine, former Member of Parliament of the ARC and former Deputy Head of the Presidential Administration appointed by the President of Ukraine. 27.     The remaining witness statements relied on by the applicant Government in their submissions were taken in October 2014 and December 2015 by investigators who worked for the offices of the Prosecutor General of Ukraine and the Chief Military Prosecutor, and who were responsible for investigating “crimes against the national security of Ukraine, peace, human security and international legal order”, identified as “criminal proceedings no. 42014010470000019 of 3 October 2014”. These included the statements made by the following persons: i.     Mykola Obidnyk, Assistant to the Operational Division Chief of Military Unit 4515; ii.     Artem Orlyk, Assistant to the Communications and Radio Support Chief at Military Base A4515; iii.     Oleksandr Zhylin, Deputy Chief of Staff at Military Base A4515; iv.     Oleksandr Kustanovych, Deputy Commander of Military Unit A0959 of the Air Forces of the Armed Forces of Ukraine; v.     Viktor Kukharenko, colonel, Chief of Staff and Deputy Commander of Military Unit A0959 of the Air Forces of the Armed Forces of Ukraine; and vi.     Vasyl Sereda, Chief of the Navigation and Communication Department, Senior Warrant Officer, at Military Unit no. 3053 of the Ukrainian Naval Forces. Official documents emanating from the Ukrainian national authorities 28 .     The official documents emanating from various Ukrainian national authorities and referred to by the applicant Government in their submissions include the following: i.     Protest notes, sent by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation between 26 February and 6 June 2014, in which they detailed the deployment of Russian troops and movements of armaments to Crimea and asked the Russian Federation to withdraw them from the territory of Ukraine. In these notes the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine alleged that the actions of the Russian Federation were in breach of Article 6 § 1, Article 8 § 2 and Article 15 §§ 1 and 5 of the Agreement on the Status and Conditions of the Presence of the BSF of the Russian Federation in the Territory of Ukraine (Kharkiv Agreement), dated 28 May 1997 (see paragraphs 202-03 below). The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine also emphasised in these notes that it had not approached “the Russian party with any suggestions or requests for the use of military units of the BSF of the Russian Federation, temporarily stationed in the territory of Ukraine for establishment of public order, the introduction of any anti-terrorist or other security measures” or the provision of any “humanitarian aid from the Russian Federation or the Government of the Russian Federation”. In a protest note sent in March 2014 the Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign Affairs referred to the Resolution of 1 March 2014, pursuant to which the Federation Council of the Russian Federal Assembly had given its consent to the President of the Russian Federation for the use of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation in the territory of Ukraine to normalise the social and political situation in the country (see paragraph 199 below). The Ukrainian Ministry underlined in the same note that, in accordance with the current Constitution of Ukraine and Ukrainian legislation, the approval of decisions on the admission of foreign armed forces in the territory of Ukraine belonged exclusively within the scope of the powers of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine (Ukrainian Parliament) and that the Verkhovna Rada had not taken any such decision; ii.     Letter from the Administration of the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine of 28 February 2014 (reference no. 0.42-1476/0/8-14) addressed to “the First Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine and the First Deputy Head of the Security Service of Ukraine”, providing information on military equipment, including a number of helicopters, entering Crimea; iii.     Letter from the Administration of the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine of 7 March 2014 (reference no. 0.232-1711/0/6-14) addressed to “the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine”, stating, inter alia , that on “7   March 2014 at Crimea-Kuban checkpoint, thirty-seven military vehicles of the Russian Federation illegally entered the territory of Ukraine without passing specified types of State control, using the fact that the border patrol conducting border control had been blocked by a group of armed soldiers of the RF”; iv.     Letter from the Ministry of the Interior of Ukraine on 22 March 2014, (reference no. 1/7/-903) addressed to “the Prosecutor General’s Office of Ukraine”, providing “operational information about the situation in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol”; v.     Letter from the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine of 24   March 2016 (reference no. 314/5/436) addressed to the “Main Military Prosecutor’s Office and the office of the Prosecutor General of Ukraine”. Together with this letter, information was provided “about the military units and detachments of the Russian Federation BSF which were stationed in the territory of the ARC before its annexation” and a copy of the Diplomatic note of the Russian Federation (no. 143n/2dsng) of 30 December 2013 was forwarded to the prosecutors; vi.     Letter from the Department of Counterintelligence of the Security Service of Ukraine of 18 April 2014 (reference no. 17/2/1-434-12016) addressed to “the Prosecutor’s General’s Office”, providing information “regarding the damage and destruction of military objects, property and equipment in the ARC during the period from February to March 2014”; vii.     Letter from the Administration of the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine of 30 September 2015 (reference no. 55/1935) addressed to “the Offices of the Chief Military Prosecutor and the Prosecutor General of Ukraine”, providing information on troops and military equipment entering Crimea in March 2014; viii.     Letter from the Department of Information and Analytical Support of the Security Service of Ukraine of 4 December 2015 (reference no. 4/3085) addressed to “the Offices of the Prosecutor General and the Chief Military Prosecutor of Ukraine”, providing information on “the subversive activity of the RF BSF Commander A. Vitko and Russian military formations subordinate to him”; ix.     Letter from the Prosecutor General’s Office of Ukraine of 28   November 2016 (reference no. 10/4/1-22437-16-746 Ref.-16) sent to “the Government Commissioner for the European Court of Human Rights” in an apparent response to a request made by the latter, providing information which had been collected in the course of the criminal proceedings concerning “the unleashing and conduct of an aggressive war against Ukraine by the representatives of the authorities of the Russian Federation and the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation”; x.     Letter from the Security Service of Ukraine of 9 December 2016 (reference no. 4/3590) and appendices addressed “to the Government Commissioner for the European Court of Human Rights”, providing information “regarding illegal activities of the RF in the territory of the AR of Crimea and Sevastopol City”; xi.     Letter from the Head of the Department of Special Information Processing of the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine of 14 February 2017 (reference no. 784/12.9.3/17-17) addressed to “the Government Commissioner for the European Court of Human Rights”. In this letter information was provided “regarding the crossing of the State border of Ukraine by the indicated persons for the period from 2013 to April 2014”; and xii.     Letter from the Ukrainian Prosecutor’s Office of the ARC of 1   March 2017 (reference no. 14/19-11 ref-17) addressed to “the Government Commissioner for the European Court of Human Rights”, providing information regarding applications made to the Ukrainian courts “in the interests of children to establish the fact of birth in the temporarily occupied territory”. The letter also states that “[i]n the temporarily occupied territory of Ukraine, citizens (who permanently reside on the peninsula) are in fact deprived of important social rights, the possibility of obtaining medical services, certain benefits, etc. without a Russian document”. Various other documents 29 .     The remaining documentary material referred to by the applicant Government in their submissions includes the following: i.     Report of the International Expert Group, published in 2017 and entitled “Case of 26 th February. Part 1: Reconstruction and legal analysis of events near the building of the Verkhovna Rada of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea in the city of Simferopol on 26th February 2014”; ii.     Translation of an article from Russian into English, entitled “The Annexation of Crimea. Anatomy. Part I”, written by Andrey Klimenko and published on 7 December 2014 in the online newspaper Black Sea News ; iii.     Decision of the Verkhovna Rada of the ARC (no. 1631-6/14), “On the expression of no confidence in the Council of Ministers of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the termination of its activities”; iv.     Decision of the Verkhovna Rada of the ARC (no. 1656-6/14), “On the appointment of S.V. Aksenov (also referred to as “Aksyonov” or “Aksionov” in some documents, hereinafter referred to as “Aksenov”; leader of the Russian Unity Party) to the post of Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea”; v.     Regulation of the Verkhovna Rada of the ARC (no. 1630-6/14), “On the organisation and holding of a republican (local) referendum concerning the improvement of the status and power and authority of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea”; vi.     Regulation of the Verkhovna Rada of the ARC (no. 1727-6/14) of 11   March 2014 “On the declaration of independence of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol”; vii.     Regulation of the State Council of the Republic of Crimea (no.   1745 ‑ 6/14) of 17 March 2014 “On the independence of Crimea”; viii.     Judgment of the Lutsk Municipal and District Court of Volyn Region of 23 February 2016, in which it found it established that the defendant, S.V., a Ukrainian citizen, had been “awarded the Medal of the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation ‘For the return of Crimea’ for activity in the interests of a foreign country”; ix.     Letter from the Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union of 22 March 2017 (reference no. 22/03-02) addressed to “the Ukrainian Government Agent for the European Court of Human Rights”, providing information about “gross violations of human rights and international humanitarian law in the peninsula by the authorities of the Russian Federation”; x.     Newspaper article entitled “Masked Russians seized our gear: Norwegian journos”, published on 11 March 2014 in the online newspaper The Local ; xi.     The United States Department of State’s Ukraine 2014 International Religious Freedom Report ; xii.     Article published by the Committee to Protect Journalists on 3   March 2014, entitled “Independent media, journalists obstructed in Crimea”; xiii.     Crimean Field Mission on Human Rights, Analytical Review, “Brief Review of the Situation in Crimea (June 2014)”; xiv.     Reporters Without Borders article “Two journalists released safely after abduction in Crimea”, published on 12 March 2014; xv.     Article published by the Committee to Protect Journ