CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 20 janvier 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .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 } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s879C130D { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .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 } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s67CAFE05 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .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 } .sD58C010 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .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 } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sF7BE029D { width:57.9pt; display:inline-block } .s31C1573F { width:139.43pt; display:inline-block } .sA3D40E95 { width:52.56pt; display:inline-block } .sA8847899 { width:93.07pt; display:inline-block } .sFF075836 { margin-right:7.05pt; margin-left:7.05pt; border-collapse:collapse; } .s56D85D7A { height:28.25pt } .s2F3EB0E4 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .sEB49263B { height:28.2pt } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sBAADFE8C { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }     FOURTH SECTION CASE OF BEKIROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 70557/14 and 42 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 20 January 2026   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Bekirov and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Faris Vehabović , President ,   Lorraine Schembri Orland,   Anne Louise Bormann , judges , and Uğur Erdal, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the applications against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by the applicants listed in the appended table, (“the applicants”), on the various dates indicated therein; the decision to give notice of the applications to the Russian Government represented by their Agent, Mr M. Vinogradov; the observations submitted by the applicants, except in applications nos.   37044/18, 37051/18, 37056/18, 37060/18, 37066/18, 37101/18, 37105/18, 37109/18, 37112/18, 37117/18, 37215/18, 37223/18, 37239/18, 37245/18, 37318/18, 37326/18, 37330/18, 37334/18, 37339/18, 37340/18, 37343/18, 37350/18, 37354/18, 39983/18, 41321/18; and the third-party comments submitted by the Ukrainian Government, represented by their Agent, most recently Ms M. Sokorenko, in applications nos.   70557/14, 3631/15, 58391/15, 57665/16, 16784/17, 32824/17, 33119/17, 34127/17, 47032/17, 61583/17, 61791/17, 38051/18, 40705/18, 40846/18, 41066/18, 41152/18, 41261/18, 41994/18; Having deliberated in private on 9 December 2025, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE 1.     The present applications arise out of the conflict between Ukraine and the Russian Federation in Crimea, following the latter’s occupation and assertion of jurisdiction over the peninsula as from 27 February 2014 (see Ukraine v.   Russia (re Crimea) [GC], nos. 20958/14 and 38334/18, 25   June   2024). They concern the impugned administrative proceedings instituted against the applicants by the Russian authorities on account of their participation in peaceful assemblies in Crimea. 2.     The applicants are residents of Crimea, the majority of whom are of Crimean Tatar origin. They took part in demonstrations in Crimea between 2014 and 2017, with a view to expressing their pro-Ukrainian position or protesting against various prosecutions brought by the Russian authorities against members of the Crimean Tatar community. Each applicant was charged with an administrative offence under Russian law in connection with the conduct of demonstrations. In some cases, the applicants were arrested and taken to police stations. Following the examination of their cases by the Russian “courts” [1] , the applicants were convicted of administrative offences and sentenced either to the payment of fines of varying amounts, or to terms of administrative detention. The applicants’ details and the factual information relevant to each application are set out in the appended table. 3.     The applicants complained that their convictions for participating in peaceful demonstrations had breached their rights to freedom of assembly and/or freedom of expression, as guaranteed by Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention. They further alleged various breaches of their procedural rights under Article   6 of the Convention in the course of the administrative proceedings against them (with the exception of application no. 47032/17 in which the applicants did not raise this complaint). Some applicants also complained that their administrative detention had been   arbitrary, in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT Preliminary issues Joinder of the applications 4.     Having regard to the similar subject matters of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. Jurisdiction 5.     The Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a Рarty to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present case (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 40792/10 and 2   others, §§   68 ‑ 73, 17 January 2023). 6.     The Court also recalls that it has already established that the Russian Federation has exercised extraterritorial jurisdiction over Crimea, within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention, in the form of “effective control of an area” as from 27 February 2014 (see Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea) , cited above, §§ 864 and 873, and Ukraine v. Russia ( re Crimea) (dec.) [GC], nos.   20958/14 and 38334/18, §§ 315-35, 16 December 2020). 7.     Accordingly, the applications in the present case fall within the jurisdiction of the Russian Federation within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention. Consequences of the Government’s failure to participate in the proceedings 8.     The Russian Government did not submit any observations in the present case. However, their failure to do so does not affect the Court’s examination of the applications (see Georgia v. Russia (II) (just satisfaction) [GC], no.   38263/08, §§ 25-27, 28 April 2023, and Svetova and Others v.   Russia , no.   54714/17, §§ 29-31, 24 January 2023). Six-month time-limit 9.     The applicants in applications nos. 39983/18 and 41321/18 complained under Article 5 §   1 of the Convention that they had been unlawfully arrested during a demonstration on 14 October 2017. The Court observes that they were released later the same day, and that they did not challenge the alleged unlawfulness of their arrest before the “courts”. The six-month period therefore started to run on the date of their release, that is, on 14   October   2017 (see, mutatis mutandis , Orlov v. Russia (dec.) [Committee], no. 7335/09, §   1, 14   May 2019). However, the applicants did not lodge their applications with the Court until mid-August 2018 (see the appended table). 10.     Accordingly, the applicants’ complaints in these two applications have been introduced out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLEs 10 and 11 OF THE CONVENTION 11.     The Court notes that some of the applicants (indicated with an asterisk in the appended table) alleged that their actions constituted solo pickets. However, the material before the Court shows that they participated in simultaneous static demonstrations across several locations in Crimea on 14   October 2017 to protest against the persecution of Crimean Tatars. The Court, being the master of characterisation of the facts, considers that this complaint falls to be examined solely under Article 11 of the Convention, Article 10 being, in the circumstances, a lex generalis in relation to Article   11, which is a lex specialis (see Ezelin v. France , 26 April 1991, § 35, Series A no. 202 and Dianova and Others v. Russia , nos.   21286/15 and 4 others, §§   61 ‑ 64, 10 September 2024). 12.     The Court further notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill ‑ founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor is it inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, it must be declared admissible. 13.     The general principles concerning freedom of peaceful assembly have been summarised in Kudrevičius and Others v. Lithuania ([GC], no.   37553/05, ECHR 2015). 14.     The Court observes that each of the applicants was convicted under Article 20.2 of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation (“the CAO”) for breaching the established procedure for conducting public events. In several cases, the authorities dispersed the events and apprehended certain applicants during or shortly after the events. It is not in dispute that these measures constituted interference with applicants’ right to freedom of peaceful assembly   (see Kasparov and Others v.   Russia , no.   21613/07, §   84, 3 October 2013). 15 .     The Court must next determine whether the interference was “prescribed by law” within the meaning of Article 11 § 2 of the Convention. It notes that the impugned measures taken by the Russian authorities, namely those of the police and the “courts”, were based on the domestic law of the Russian Federation. However, when the respondent State extended the application of its laws to Crimea, it did so in contravention of the Convention as interpreted in the light of international humanitarian law. Consequently, Russian law cannot be regarded as “law” within the meaning of the Convention, and any administrative practice based thereon cannot be considered “lawful” or “in accordance with law” (see Ukraine v.   Russia (re   Crimea) , cited above, §§   942 and 946). Accordingly, the Court concludes that the impugned measures cannot be regarded as “prescribed by law” in the present case. In view of this finding, the Court does not need to examine whether the remaining requirements of Article 11 § 2, namely the pursuit of a legitimate aim and the necessity of the interference, were met. 16.     Furthermore, the Court notes that it has already established the existence of an administrative practice by the Russian authorities involving the prohibition of public gatherings and expressions of support for Ukraine or the Crimean Tatar community, as well as the intimidation and arbitrary detention of organisers of such demonstrations, in violation of Article 11 of the Convention (see Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea) , cited above, §§ 1109-28). The present case clearly illustrates the existence of that administrative practice in Crimea following its occupation by the Russian Federation. By participating in the demonstrations in question, the applicants expressly opposed the measures taken by the Russian authorities, either by denouncing the persecution of Crimean Tatars or by affirming that Crimea forms an integral part of Ukraine. In these circumstances, the measures taken against them formed part of a pattern aimed at intimidating the local population, particularly members of the Crimean Tatar community, and at suppressing pro-Ukrainian sentiments. 17.     There has accordingly been a violation of Article 11 of the Convention in respect of all the applicants. other ALLEGED VIOLATIONs under well-established CASE-law 18.     Some applicants submitted additional complaints, raising issues under various provisions of the Convention, which have already been examined by the Court in Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea) (cited above). These complaints are not manifestly ill ‑ founded within the meaning of Article   35   §   3   (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. 19.     As regards the complaint under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in applications nos.   57665/16, 61583/17 and 61791/17, the Court notes that the applicants were subjected to administrative detention by the police under Russian law. In view of its findings in paragraph 15 above, the Court likewise concludes that the applicants’ detention pursuant to that law cannot be regarded as “lawful” within the meaning of Article   5 §   1 (see Ukraine v.   Russia (re Crimea) cited above, §§   943-46 and 998). Accordingly, there has been a violation of that provision in respect of the applicants in these three applications. 20.     As to the complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the Court observes that although some applicants did not contest the legal status of the “courts” which examined their cases in Crimea after its occupation, they raised other complaints concerning the fairness of the proceedings, in line with the Court’s well-established case-law (see Karelin v. Russia , no.   926/08, §§ 69-84, 20 September 2016). The Court further notes that, since the proceedings in the applicants’ cases took place after the entry into force of the “Accession Treaty”, its findings in Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea) under Article 6 of the Convention are applicable here. In that judgment, the Court held that the tribunals operating in Crimea under Russian legislation could not be regarded as “established by law” within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention (ibid, § 1019). This finding is sufficient for the Court to conclude that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in all applications, except application no. 47032/17 in which this complaint was not raised. REMAINING COMPLAINTS 21.     Lastly, some applicants raised additional complaints under Articles   7, 8, 13, 14 and 18 of the Convention, as well as under Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention. Having regard to the facts of the case and its findings above, the Court considers that it has dealt with the main legal questions raised by the applicants and that there is no need to examine the admissibility and merits of the remaining complaints (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, §   156, ECHR   2014). APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 22.     A number of the applicants claimed various sums in respect of pecuniary and non ‑ pecuniary damage, as well as various sums for their costs and expenses incurred before the domestic “courts” and the Court (see the appended table). 23.     As regards pecuniary damage, some of these applicants claimed reimbursement of the administrative fines imposed on them. The Court finds a direct causal link between the violations found and the fines paid following the applicants’ conviction for administrative offences. It therefore awards the applicants who submitted proof of payment the amounts claimed, as indicated in the appended table, and rejects the pecuniary claims in applications nos.   16784/17, 32824/17, 33119/17, 34127/17 and 38051/18, in which no such proof was provided. 24.     In respect of non-pecuniary damage, having regard to the circumstances of the case and, where relevant, to the ne ultra petita principle, the Court awards each applicant the amounts indicated in the appended table, plus any tax that may be chargeable. 25.     As regards costs and expenses, having regard to the documents in its possession, the Court considers it reasonable to award the applicant in application no. 3631/15, who submitted supporting documents, EUR   3,750, plus any tax that may be chargeable, to be paid directly into the bank account of his representative Mr Tarakhkalo. It dismisses the claims in applications nos. 61583/17 and 61791/17 in the absence of any supporting documents showing that the applicants either paid, or were under a legal obligation to pay, the fees charged by their representatives (see   Merabishvili v.   Georgia   [GC], no.   72508/13, § 372, 28 November 2017). 26.     As regards those applicants who did not submit any claims for just satisfaction or costs and expenses, the Court considers that there is no call to award them any sums (see Atiman v. Turkey , no. 62279/09, §   44, 23   September 2014). FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications; Holds that the facts complained of by the applicants fall within the jurisdiction of the Russian Federation in so far as they relate to facts that took place before 16 September 2022, and that the Government’s failure to participate in the proceedings presents no obstacle to the examination of the case; Declares admissible the complaints under Articles 5 § 1, 6 § 1 and 11 of the Convention, as set out in the appended table, and declares inadmissible the complaints under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in applications nos. 39983/18 and 41321/18; Holds that there has been a violation of Article 11 of the Convention in all applications; Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in applications nos. 57665/16, 61583/17 and 61791/17; Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in all applications, except in application no. 47032/17; Holds that there is no need to examine the admissibility and merits of the remaining complaints; Holds (a)   that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement, plus any tax that may be chargeable to them; (b)   that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 20 January 2026, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.     Uğur Erdal   Faris Vehabović   Acting Deputy Registrar   President       APPENDIX List of cases: No. Application no. Case name Date of introduction Applicant Year of Birth Nationality Represented by Name of the public event Location Date Administrative offence Final domestic decision: “Court” Name Date Penalty Other complaints under the well-established case-law Just satisfaction claims: non-pecuniary damage (NPD), pecuniary damage (PD), costs and expenses (CE) Claimed Awarded 1. 70557/14 Bekirov v. Russia 24/10/2014 Bilyal Refat Ogly BEKIROV 1992 Ukrainian Anastasiia Romanivna MARTYNOVSKA   Mykhailo Oleksandrovych TARAKHKALO Demonstration in support of Mustafa Dzhemilov   Aromatne village   03/05/2014 article 20.2.2 § 1 of CAO   “Court of Appeal of the Republic of Crimea”   19/06/2014   fine of RUB 10,000 Art. 6 (1) - tribunal not established by law.   EUR 30,000 (NPD)   EUR 10,000 (NPD)   2. 3631/15 Neganov v. Russia 24/12/2014 Viktor Vadimovich NEGANOV 1985 Ukrainian Oryna Rubenivna CHYLUTYAN   Anastasiia Romanivna MARTYNOVSKA   Mykhailo Oleksandrovych TARAKHKALO   Demonstration marking the Independence Day of Ukraine   Sevastopol 24/08/2014 article 20.2 § 2 of CAO “Court of Appeal of the City of Sevastopol”   15/10/2014   fine of RUB 30,000 Art. 6 (1) - tribunal not established by law.   EUR 10,000 (NPD)   RUB 30,000 (PD)     EUR 3,750 (CE) EUR 10,000 (NPD)     EUR 582 (PD)     EUR 3,750 (CE) to be paid directly into the bank account of the applicant’s representative Mr Tarakhkalo 3. 58391/15 Ametova v. Russia 17/11/2015 Saniye Isayivna AMETOVA 1957 Ukrainian Anastasiia Romanivna MARTYNOVSKA Demonstration marking the Crimean Tatar Deportation Remembrance Day   Voinka village 18/05/2015 article 20.2 § 1 of CAO “Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea”   03/08/2015   fine of RUB 10,000 Art. 6 (1) – tribunal not established by law.   EUR 6,000 (NPD)   EUR 150 (PD) EUR 6,000 (NPD)     No PD awarded 4. 57665/16 Kopylova v. Russia 21/09/2016 Irina Valeryevna KOPYLOVA 1977 Ukrainian Nikolay Sergeyevich ZBOROSHENKO Demonstration against annexation of Crimea   Simferopol 11/08/2015 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO “Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea”   30/03/2016   fine of RUB 10,000 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest and escorting to the police station on 11/08/2015 for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; she was released on the same day;   Art. 6 (1) – tribunal not established by law. EUR 10,000 (NPD)     EUR 10,000 (NPD)   5. 16784/17 Saliyev v. Russia 23/02/2017 Seyran Alimovych SALIYEV 1985 Russian Anastasiia Romanivna MARTYNOVSKA   Anastasiia Sergiyivna NEKRASOVA   Mykhailo Oleksandrovych TARAKHKALO Protest against searches of Crimean Tatar property   Bakhchysarai 12/05/2016 article 20.2 § 2 of CAO “Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea”   23/08/2016   fine of RUB 20,000 Art. 6 (1) - tribunal not established by law.   EUR 30,000 (NPD)   EUR 270 (PD) EUR 10,000 (NPD)   No PD awarded 6. 32824/17 Bilyalov v. Russia 28/04/2017 Emil Yunusovych BILYALOV 1986 Russian Mykhailo Oleksandrovych TARAKHKALO Protest against searches of Crimean Tatar property   Bakhchysarai 12/05/2016 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO “Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea”   16/11/2016   fine of RUB 10,000 Art. 6 (1) - tribunal not established by law.   EUR 30,000 (NPD)   RUB 160,000 (PD)   EUR 10,000 (NPD)   No PD awarded 7. 33119/17 Asanov v. Russia 28/04/2017 Marlen Rifatovich ASANOV 1977 Russian Anastasiia Romanivna MARTYNOVSKA   Anastasiia Sergiyivna NEKRASOVA   Mykhailo Oleksandrovych TARAKHKALO Protest against searches of Crimean Tatar property   Bakhchysarai 12/05/2016 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO “Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea”   08/11/2016   fine of RUB 15,000 Art. 6 (1) - tribunal not established by law.   EUR 30,000 (NPD)   RUB 20,000 (PD)   EUR 10,000 (NPD)   No PD awarded 8. 34127/17 Bilyalov v. Russia 28/04/2017 Emin Yunusovych BILYALOV 1986 Russian Mykhailo Oleksandrovych TARAKHKALO Protest against searches of Crimean Tatar property   Bakhchysarai 12/05/2016 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO “Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea”   15/12/2016   fine of RUB 10,000 Art. 6 (1) - tribunal not established by law.   EUR 30,000 (NPD)   EUR 103,45 (PD)   EUR 10,000 (NPD)     No PD awarded   9. 47032/17 Muslyadinov and Others v. Russia 13/06/2017 Alim Izetovich MUSLYADINOV 1995 Russian Ablyakim Dilyaverovich ABLYAKIMOV 1994 Russian Enver Fakhriyevich CHAVUSH 1996 Russian Seytmamut Dzhelyalovich SEYTUMEROV 1996 Russian Aleksandr Vasilyevich POPKOV Car procession during Crimean Tatar Deportation Remembrance Day   Sudak 18/05/2016 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO “Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea”   22/12/2016 (Mr Muslyadinov and Mr Ablyakimov)   15/12/2016 (Mr Chavush and Mr Seytumerov)   fine of RUB 10,000 (each applicant)   NPD – at the Court’s discretion EUR 7,500 (NPD) to each of the applicants     10. 61583/17 Arifmemetov and Others v. Russia 03/08/2017 Osman Feratovych ARIFMEMETOV 1985 Ukrainian Remzi Rustemovych BEKIROV 1985 Ukrainian Valeriy Mykhaylovych GRIGOR 1971 Ukrainian Riza Mustafayevych IZETOV 1979 Ukrainian Alim Egamberdiyovych KARIMOV 1994 Ukrainian Ruslan Serverovych SULEYMANOV 1983 Ukrainian Yuliia Oleksandrivna KOVALENKO   Anastasiia Romanivna MARTYNOVSKA   Mykhailo Oleksandrovych TARAKHKALO     Protest against searches of Crimean Tatar property   Simferopol 21/02/2017 article 20.2.2 §   1 of CAO   “Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea”   02/03/2017   detention for 5 days (all applicants) Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest and escorting to the police station on 21/02/2017 for the purpose of drawing up records of administrative offence and bringing to the court;   Art. 6 (1) - tribunal not established by law.   EUR 10,000 (to each of the applicants) (NPD)   EUR 22,500 for representation of Mr Arifmemetov, Mr Bekirov, Mr Grigor, Mr Izetov, Mr Suleymanov (EUR 4,500 to each applicant) (CE)   EUR 10,000 (to each of the applicants)   No CE awarded 11. 61791/17 Abdurakhmanov and Others v. Russia 08/08/2017 Ablyakim Anafiyevych ABDURAKHMANOV 1977 Ukrainian Medzhit Anafiyevych ABDOURAKHMANOV 1975 Ukrainian Seyran Kemadinovich MURTAZA 1983 Ukrainian Envyer Nedimovych TASINOV 1976 Ukrainian Yuliia Oleksandrivna KOVALENKO   Anastasiia Romanivna MARTYNOVSKA   Mykhailo Oleksandrovych TARAKHKALO Protest against searches of Crimean Tatar property   Simferopol 21/02/2017   article 20.2.2 §   1 of CAO (all applicants) “Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea”   02/03/2017 (Mr A. Abdurakhmanov and Mr M. Abdurakhmanov)   25/04/2017 (Mr Murtaza)   06/04/2017 (Mr Tasinov)   detention for 5 days (all applicants) Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest and escorting to the police station on 21/02/2017 for the purpose of drawing up records of administrative offence and bringing to the court;   Art. 6 (1) - tribunal not established by law.   EUR 10,000 (NPD) (to each applicant)   EUR 3,000 (CE) (Mr A. Abdurakhmanov)   EUR 4500 (CE) (Mr M. Abdurakhmanov) EUR 10,000 (NPD) (to each of the applicants)   No CE awarded 12.   37044/18 Kutuzov v. Russia* 30/07/2018 Rimzi Shevketovich KUTUZOV 1962 Ukrainian Emil Makhsudovich KURBEDINOV Demonstration against persecution of Crimean Tatars   Dzhankoi 14/10/2017 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO “Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea” 15/02/2018   fine of RUB 10,000 Art. 6 (1) – tribunal not established by law.     The applicant did not submit any claim for just satisfaction as required by Rule 60 of the Rules of Court. No compensation awarded 13. 37051/18 Rustemov v. Russia* 30/07/2018 Ruslan Ismailovich RUSTEMOV 1982 Ukrainian Emil Makhsudovich KURBEDINOV Demonstration against persecution of Crimean Tatars   Feodosiia 14/10/2017 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO “Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea”   13/03/2018   fine of RUB 10,000 Art. 6 (1) – tribunal not established by law.   The applicant did not submit any claim for just satisfaction as required by Rule 60 of the Rules of Court. No compensation awarded 14. 37056/18 Dani v. Russia* 30/07/2018 Eral Asanovich DANI 1978 Ukrainian Emil Makhsudovich KURBEDINOV Demonstration against persecution of Crimean Tatars   Blyzhnie village 14/10/2017 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO “Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea”   13/03/2018   fine of RUB 10,000 Art. 6 (1) – tribunal not established by law.   The applicant did not submit any claim for just satisfaction as required by Rule 60 of the Rules of Court. No compensation awarded 15. 37060/18 Murakhas v. Russia* 30/07/2018 Mustafa Rustemovich MURAKHAS 1989 Ukrainian Emil Makhsudovich KURBEDINOV Demonstration against persecution of Crimean Tatars   Ostrovske village 14/10/2017   article 20.2 § 5 of CAO “Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea”   07/02/2018   fine of RUB 10,000 Art. 6 (1) – tribunal not established by law.   The applicant did not submit any claim for just satisfaction as required by Rule 60 of the Rules of Court. No compensation awarded 16. 37066/18 Zekeryayev v. Russia* 30/07/2018 Ayder Abdumadzhitovich ZEKERYAYEV 1970 Ukrainian Emil Makhsudovich KURBEDINOV Demonstration against persecution of Crimean Tatars   Blyzhnogorodske village 14/10/2017 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO “Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea”   31/01/2018   fine of RUB 15,000 Art. 6 (1) – tribunal not established by law.   The applicant did not submit any claim for just satisfaction as required by Rule 60 of the Rules of Court. No compensation awarded 17. 37101/18 Zekeryayev v. Russia* 30/07/2018 Leman Abdumadzhitovich ZEKERYAYEV 1973 Ukrainian Emil Makhsudovich KURBEDINOV Demonstration against persecution of Crimean Tatars   Roshchyno village 14/10/2017 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO “Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea”   07/02/2018   fine of RUB 15,000 Art. 6 (1) – tribunal not established by law.   The applicant did not submit any claim for just satisfaction as required by Rule 60 of the Rules of Court. No compensation awarded 18. 37105/18 Ziyadinov v. Russia* 30/07/2018 Avlyamit Suleymanovich ZIYADINOV 1990 Ukrainian Emil Makhsudovich KURBEDINOV Demonstration against persecution of Crimean Tatars   Pobiedne village 14/10/2017 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO “Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea”   07/02/2018   fine of RUB 15,000 Art. 6 (1) – tribunal not established by law.   The applicant did not submit any claim for just satisfaction as required by Rule 60 of the Rules of Court. No compensation awarded 19. 37109/18 Asanov v. Russia* 30/07/2018 Riza Kadirovich ASANOV 1962 Ukrainian Emil Makhsudovich KURBEDINOV Demonstration against persecution of Crimean Tatars   Novostepove village 14/10/2017 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO “Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea”   15/02/2018   fine of RUB 15,000 Art. 6 (1) - tribunal not established by law.   The applicant did not submit any claim for just satisfaction as required by Rule 60 of the Rules of Court. No compensation awarded 20. 37112/18 Suleymanov v. Russia* 30/07/2018   Ayder Osmanovich SULEYMANOV 1989 Ukrainian Emil Makhsudovich KURBEDINOV Demonstration against persecution of Crimean Tatars   Pobiedne village 14/10/2017 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO “Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea”   13/02/2018   fine of RUB 10,000 Art. 6 (1) – tribunal not established by law.   The applicant did not submit any claim for just satisfaction as required by Rule 60 of the Rules of Court. No compensation awarded 21. 37117/18 Suleymanov v. Russia* 30/07/2018 Ruslan Serverovych SULEYMANOV 1983 Ukrainian Emil Makhsudovich KURBEDINOV Demonstration against persecution of Crimean Tatars   Simferopol 14/10/2017 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO “Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea”   14/02/2018   fine of RUB 10,000 Art. 6 (1) – tribunal not established by law.   The applicant did not submit any claim for just satisfaction as required by Rule 60 of the Rules of Court. No compensation awarded 22. 37215/18 Suleymanov v. Russia* 30/07/2018 Ali Dlyaverovich SULEYMANOV 1985 Ukrainian Emil Makhsudovich KURBEDINOV Demonstration against persecution of Crimean Tatars   Chystenke village 14/10/2017 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO “Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea”   15/02/2018   fine of RUB 10,000 Art. 6 (1) – tribunal not established by law.   The applicant did not submit any claim for just satisfaction as required by Rule 60 of the Rules of Court. No compensation awarded 23. 37223/18 Kantemirov v. Russia* 30/07/2018 Eldar Shukurievich KANTEMIROV 1980 Ukrainian Emil Makhsudovich KURBEDINOV Demonstration against persecution of Crimean Tatars   Zarichne village 14/10/2017 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO “Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea”   12/02/2018   fine of RUB 10,000 Art. 6 (1) – tribunal not established by law.   The applicant did not submit any claim for just satisfaction as required by Rule 60 of the Rules of Court. No compensation awarded 24. 37239/18 Kerimov v. Russia* 30/07/2018 Lenur Lenterovich KERIMOV 1988 Ukrainian Emil Makhsudovich KURBEDINOV Demonstration against persecution of Crimean Tatars   Prydorozhnie village 14/10/2017 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO “Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea”   07/02/2018   fine of RUB 15,000 Art. 6 (1) – tribunal not established by law.   The applicant did not submit any claim for just satisfaction as required by Rule 60 of the Rules of Court. No compensation awarded 25. 37245/18 Ibragimov v. Russia* 30/07/2018 Ayder Muzafarovich IBRAGIMOV 1989 Ukrainian Emil Makhsudovich KURBEDINOV Demonstration against persecution of Crimean Tatars   Krasnohvardiiske 14/10/2017 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO “Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea”   15/02/2018   fine of RUB 10,000 Art. 6 (1) – tribunal not established by law.   The applicant did not submit any claim for just satisfaction as required by Rule 60 of the Rules of Court. No compensation awarded 26. 37318/18 Abdurakhmanov v. Russia* 30/07/2018   Medzhit Anafiyevich ABDURAKHMANOV 1975 Ukrainian Emil Makhsudovich KURBEDINOV Demonstration against persecution of Crimean Tatars   Simferopol 14/10/2017 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO “Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea”   14/02/2018   fine of RUB 10,000 Art. 6 (1) – tribunal not established by law.   The applicant did not submit any claim for just satisfaction as required by Rule 60 of the Rules of Court. No compensation awarded 27. 37326/18 Abibullayev v. Russia* 30/07/2018 Eridzhep Narimanovich ABIBULLAYEV 1998 Ukrainian Emil Makhsudovich KURBEDINOV Demonstration against persecution of Crimean Tatars   Stovpove village 14/10/2017 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO “Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea”   07/02/2018   fine of RUB 10,000 Art. 6 (1) – tribunal not established by law.   The applicant did not submit any claim for just satisfaction as required by Rule 60 of the Rules of Court. No compensation awarded 28. 37330/18 Aliyev v. Russia* 30/07/2018 Akhtem Seryanovich ALIYEV 1973 Ukrainian Emil Makhsudovich KURBEDINOV Demonstration against persecution of Crimean Tatars   Dobre village 14/10/2017 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO “Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea”   05/02/2018   fine of RUB 10,000 Art. 6 (1) – tribunal not established by law.   The applicant did not submit any claim for just satisfaction as required by Rule 60 of the Rules of Court. No compensation awarded 29. 37334/18 Aliyev v. Russia* 30/07/2018 Nadir Akramzhonovich ALIYEV 1998 Ukrainian Emil Makhsudovich KURBEDINOV Demonstration against persecution of Crimean Tatars   Pobiedne village 14/10/2017 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO “Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea”   08/02/2018   fine of RUB 10,000 Art. 6 (1) – tribunal not established by law.   The applicant did not submit any claim for just satisfaction as required by Rule 60 of the Rules of Court. No compensation awarded 30. 37339/18 Emiruseinov v. Russia* 30/07/2018 Reshat Asanovich EMIRUSEINOV 1950 Ukrainian Emil Makhsudovich KURBEDINOV Demonstration against persecution of Crimean Tatars   Oktiabrske village 14/10/2017 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO “Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea”   15/02/2018   fine of RUB 10,000 Art. 6 (1) – tribunal not established by law.   The applicant did not submit any claim for just satisfaction as required by Rule 60 of the Rules of Court. No compensation awarded 31. 37340/18 Ametov v. Russia* 30/07/2018 Nariman Delyaverovich AMETOV 1970 Ukrainian Emil Makhsudovich KURBEDINOV Demonstration against persecution of Crimean Tatars   Feodosiia 14/10/2017 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO “Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea”   15/02/2018   fine of RUB 10,000 Art. 6 (1) – tribunal not established by law.   The applicant did not submit any claim for just satisfaction as required by Rule 60 of the Rules of Court. No compensation awarded 32. 37343/18 Asanov v. Russia* 30/07/2018 Bakhtiyer Rizayevich ASANOV 1960 Ukrainian Emil Makhsudovich KURBEDINOV Demonstration against persecution of Crimean Tatars   Pionerske village 14/10/2017 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO “Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea”   07/02/2018   fine of RUB 10,000 Art. 6 (1) – tribunal not established by law.   The applicant did not submit any claim for just satisfaction as required by Rule 60 of the Rules of Court. No compensation awarded 33. 37350/18 Urimov v. Russia* 30/07/2018 Aziz Salidzhanovich URIMOV 1984 Ukrainian Emil Makhsudovich KURBEDINOV Demonstration against persecution of Crimean Tatars   Feodosiia 14/10/2017 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO “Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea”   13/03/2018   fine of RUB 10,000 Art. 6 (1) – tribunal not established by law.   The applicant did not submit any claim for just satisfaction as required by Rule 60 of the Rules of Court. No compensation awarded 34. 37354/18 Bekirov v. Russia* 30/07/2018 Edem Asanovich BEKIROV 1976 Ukrainian Emil Makhsudovich KURBEDINOV Demonstration against persecution of Crimean Tatars   Dzhankoi 14/10/2017 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO “Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea”   07/02/2018   fine of RUB 10,000 Art. 6 (1) – tribunal not established by law.   The applicant did not submit any claim for just satisfaction as required by Rule 60 of the Rules of Court. No compensation awarded 35. 38051/18 Bovbekiv and Others v. Russia* 30/06/2018 Leman Mambetovych BOVBEKIV 1991 Ukrainian Eldar Enverovych EMIR-USEIN 1989 Ukrainian Tair Suleymanovych IBRAGIMOV 1949 Ukrainian Envyer Ryeshadovych KHALILOV 1959 Ukrainian Zekiya Vaitovych KULAMETOV 1959 Ukrainian Rustam KURKCHY 1960 Ukrainian Sadri Mammetovych MURATOV 1979 Ukrainian Seitbilol Seitmamutovych SEITMEMETOV 1963 Ukrainian Server Seydaliyevych SEYTIBRAMOV 1960 Ukrainian Ruslan Rystamovych UMEROV 1978 Ukrainian   Simar Narimanovych YAKUBOV 1986 Ukrainian Dzhamadin Myenellyayevych ZIYADINOV 1957 Ukrainian Ebubekir Aliyevych ZIYADINOV 1987 Ukrainian Anna Grygorivna KOZMENKO   Anastasiia Romanivna MARTYNOVSKA   Mykhailo Oleksandrovych TARAKHKALO Demonstrations against persecution of Crimean Tatars   Various locations in Crimea 14/10/2017 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO “Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea”   06/02/2018 (Mr Bovbekiv)   14/02/2018 (Mr Emir-Usein)   07/02/2018 (Mr Ibragimov)   15/02/2018 (Mr Khalilov)   13/02/2018 (Mr Kulametov)   31/01/2018 (Mr Kurkchy)   14/02/2018 (Mr Muratov)   07/02/2018 (Mr Seitmemetov)   21/02/2018 (Mr Seytibramov)   14/02/2018 (Mr Umerov)   21/02/2018 (Mr Yakubov)   15/02/2018 (Mr D.M. Ziyadinov)   15/02/2018 (Mr E.A. Ziyadinov)   fine of RUB 10,000 (each applicant) Art. 6 (1) – tribunal not established by law.   EUR 10,000 each applicant (NPD)   EUR 150 each applicant (PD) EUR 10,000 each applicant (NPD)   No PD awarded 36. 39983/18 Muratov v. Russia* 15/08/2018 Ali Mametovich MURATOV 1981 Russian Yevgeniya Oleksandrivna ZAKREVSKA Demonstration against persecution of Crimean Tatars   Simferopol 14/10/2017 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO “Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea”   15/02/2018   fine of RUB 10,000 Art. 6 (1) – tribunal not established by law.   The applicant did not submit any claim for just satisfaction as required by Rule 60 of the Rules of Court. No compensation awarded 37. 40705/18 Ablyatipov v. Russia* 05/08/2018 Server Umerovich ABLYATIPOV 1964 Russian Alina Vladimirovna YESIPOVA Demonstration against persecution of Crimean Tatars   Krasnohvardiiske 14/10/2017 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO “Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea”   07/02/2018   fine of RUB 10,000 Art. 6 (1) – tribunal not established by law.   NPD – at the Court’s discretion   RUB 10,000 (PD)   EUR 10,000 (NPD)     EUR 140 (PD) 38. 40846/18 Ablyatipov v. Russia* 05/08/2018 Enver Umerovich ABLYATIPOV 1963 Russian Alina Vladimirovna YESIPOVA Demonstration against persecution of Crimean Tatars   Krasnohvardiiske 14/10/2017 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO “Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea”   07/02/2018   fine of RUB 10,000 Art. 6 (1) – tribunal not established by law.   NPD – at the Court’s discretion   RUB 10,000 (PD)   EUR 10,000 (NPD)     EUR 140 (PD) 39. 41066/18 Ablyatipov v. Russia* 05/08/2018 Umer Mukhamedovich ABLYATIPOV 1996 Russian Alina Vladimirovna YESIPOVA Demonstration against persecution of Crimean Tatars   Krasnohvardiiske 14/10/2017 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO “Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea”   07/02/2018   fine of RUB 10,000 Art. 6 (1) – tribunal not established by law.   NPD – at the Court’s discretion   RUB 10,000 (PD)   EUR 10,000 (NPD)     EUR 140 (PD) 40. 41152/18 Ablyatipov v. Russia* 12/08/2018 Abdulkhay Umerovich ABLYATIPOV 1966 Russian Alina Vladimirovna YESIPOVA Demonstration against persecution of Crimean Tatars   Krasnohvardiiske 14/10/2017 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO “Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea”   14/02/2018   fine of RUB 10,000 Art. 6 (1) – tribunal not established by law.   NPD – at the Court’s discretion   RUB 10,000 (PD)     EUR 10,000 (NPD)     EUR 140 (PD) 41. 41261/18 Ablyatipov v. Russia* 12/08/2018 Mimet Umerovich ABLYATIPOV 1955 Russian Alina Vladimirovna YESIPOVA Demonstration against persecution of Crimean Tatars   Krasnohvardiiske 14/10/2017 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO “Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea”   14/02/2018   fine of RUB 10,000 Art. 6 (1) – tribunal not established by law.   NPD – at the Court’s discretion   RUB 10,000 (PD)   EUR 10,000 (NPD)     EUR 140 (PD) 42. 41321/18 Azizov v. Russia* 12/08/2018 Enver Iskanderovich AZIZOV 1976 Russian Yevgeniya Oleksandrivna ZAKREVSKA Demonstration against persecution of Crimean Tatars   Simferopol 14/10/2017 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO “Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea”   13/02/2018   fine of RUB 10,000 Art. 6 (1) – tribunal not established by law.   The applicant did not submit any claim for just satisfaction as required by Rule 60 of the Rules of Court. No compensation awarded 43. 41994/18 Ablayev v. Russia* 23/07/2018 Delyaver Rayedovich ABLAYEV 1968 Russian Aleksandr Dmitriyevich PEREDRUK Demonstration against persecution of Crimean Tatars   Novostepove village 14/10/2017 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO “Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea”   13/02/2018   fine of RUB 10,000 Art. 6 (1) – tribunal not established by law.   NPD – at the Court’s discretion   RUB 10,000 (PD)   EUR 10,000 (NPD)     EUR 140 (PD)   [1] The names of courts established under Russian law are indicated in inverted commas (see Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea) [GC], nos. 20958/14 and 38334/18, § 41, 25 June 2024).