CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 octobre 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s79B8843C { margin-top:60pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s8A0E4F07 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:28.35pt; text-align:justify; font-size:7pt } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s2D726B78 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 21 November 2022   FIRST SECTION Application no. 19557/15 Aleksandr Aleksandrovich KOLCHENKO against Russia and 8 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 28 October 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications originate from the conflict between Ukraine and the Russian Federation. They concern the allegedly unlawful convictions and/or detention of the applicants, who also argue that criminal charges were brought against them on account of their participation in public demonstrations and/or of their allegiance to the Ukrainian Government and their opposition against Crimea being under the control of the Russian Federation. In application no. 73271/16 the applicant was convicted of the offence of “disobedience to the person in authority” committed in the course of the search carried out allegedly after him having hung a Ukrainian flag over his house. In application no. 19557/15 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of membership of a Ukrainian organisation «Правий Cектор» [Pravyy Sector] which is deemed to be a terrorist organisation under Russian legislation. In application no. 5183/19 the applicant was found guilty of various administrative and criminal offences for displaying the symbol of the “Azov” battalion on his bicycle and for posting allegedly extremist messages in which he portrayed himself as a proponent of the Ukrainian Government on the social network “VKontakte”. In application no.   15741/18 the applicant was convicted for having posted an article in which he advocated the “blockade” of Crimea with a view to facilitate its return to Ukrainian jurisdiction. In application no. 7905/18 the applicant was initially apprehended by FSB officers on suspicion of carrying out espionage activities for Ukraine. Subsequently he was convicted for possession of drugs. In application no.   33405/17 the applicant was convicted for throwing “Molotov cocktails” at police officers during the Maidan manifestation in Kyiv. In applications nos.   40452/19 and 40456/19 the applicants, Crimean Tatar activists, were detained, allegedly for their involvement in the Crimean Tatar movement. In application no. 52337/21 the applicant was detained on suspicion of possession of explosives which, he alleges, were planted in his house after he had displayed his allegiance to the Ukrainian Government. The applicants allege, in particular, violations of their right to liberty, fair hearing guarantees and their right to respect for private and family life. They also raise a number of complaints which stem from the change of the legal system on the territory of Crimea after the Russian Federation had asserted its jurisdiction. These complaints relate to lawfulness of application of Russian law on the territory of Crimea; accessibility and foreseeability of Russian law for the inhabitants of Crimea; and alleged non-compliance of the judges in Crimean courts with the legislative requirements for judges in Russian Federation.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Have the applicants complied with the admissibility requirements set forth in Article   35   §   1 of the Convention?   2.     As regards applications nos. 19557/15, 5183/19 and 52337/21, were the applicants deprived of their liberty in breach of Article   5 §   1 of the Convention?   3.     As regards applications nos. 19557/15 and 52337/2, were the applicants brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power, as required by Article   5 §   3 of the Convention?   4.     As regards applications nos. 19557/15 and 52337/21, was the length of the applicants’ pre-trial detention in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article   5 §   3 of the Convention? In this connection, as regards application no. 19557/15, was the applicant’s detention ordered by former Ukrainian judges who, prior to March 2014, had carried out their tasks in Crimea according to Ukrainian legislation, or was it ordered by newly-appointed (after the Russian Federation had asserted the jurisdiction over Crimea) judges transferred from the Russian Federation?   5.     As regards applications nos. 73271/16, 33405/17, 15741/18, 7905/18 and 5183/19, did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against them, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, were the guarantees of Article   6   §   3 respected in the course of the criminal proceedings against the applicants? As regards application no. 5183/19, were the guarantees of Article   6   §   2 respected in the course of the criminal proceedings against the applicant? In this connection, when did the victims of the criminal offence allegedly committed by the applicant in application no. 33405/17, namely the ex ‑ police officers of Ukraine Kozliakov M.V. and Gavrylenko A.V., become citizens of the Russian Federation?   6.     As regards applications nos. 73271/16 and 5183/19, did the relevant provisions, on the basis of which the applicants were convicted, fulfil the qualitative requirements as set out in the Court’s case-law under Article 7 of the Convention (see Scoppola v. Italy (no.   2) [GC], no.   10249/03, § 99, 17   September   2009)?   7.     Was the Russian criminal legislation published and made publicly available on the territory of Crimea? How did the Russian Federation provide the accessibility of Russian criminal legislation to non-Russian speaking inhabitants (Ukrainians and Tatars) of Crimea?   8.     As regards applications nos. 19557/15, 15741/18, 5183/19, 40452/19 and 52337/21, has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their private and/or family life and/or correspondence, within the meaning of Article   8   §   1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article   8 §   2?   9.     As regards application no.   19557/15, was the applicant’s transfer to a Russian detention facility compatible with guarantees of Article 8 of the Convention? Was the applicant deprived of his Ukrainian citizenship?   10.     As regards applications nos. 52337/21 and 19557/15, are there any effective remedies in respect of the applicants’ complaints under Article 8 of the Convention?   11.     As regards applications nos. 73271/16, 33405/17, 15741/18, 5183/19 and 52337/21, has there been an interference with the applicants’ freedom of expression within the meaning of Article   10 §   1 of the Convention?   12.     As regards application no. 73271/16, has the applicant been convicted twice for the same offence, in breach of Article   4   §   1 of Protocol No.   7?   13.     As regards applications nos. 5183/19 and 73271/16, were the restrictions imposed by the respondent State, purportedly pursuant to Articles   5, 8 and 10 of the Convention, applied for a purpose other than those envisaged by those provisions, contrary to Article   18 of the Convention?   14.     As regards applications nos. 40452/19 and 40456/19, did the material conditions of the applicants’ detention in amount to inhuman or degrading treatment?   APPENDIX No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Represented by 1. 19557/15 Kolchenko v.   Russia 06/04/2015 Aleksandr Aleksandrovich KOLCHENKO 1989 Kopeysk Ukrainian Irina Vladimirovna KHRUNOVA 2. 73271/16 Balukh v.   Russia 23/11/2016 Volodymyr Grygorovych BALUKH 1971 Serebryanka Ukrainian Mykhaylo Oleksandrovych TARAKHKALO 3. 33405/17 Kolomiyets v.   Russia 21/04/2017 Andrey Vladimirovich KOLOMIYETS 1993 Krasnodar Ukrainian Irina Vladimirovna KHRUNOVA 4. 7905/18 Prisich v.   Russia 03/02/2018 Vladimir Sergeyevich PRISICH 1983 Kamenka Ukrainian Sergey Aleksandrovich NASONOV 5. 15741/18 Semena v.   Russia 27/03/2018 Nikolay Mikhaylovich SEMENA 1950 Simferopol Russian, Ukrainian Aleksandr Vasilyevich POPKOV 6. 5183/19 Movenko v.   Russia 26/12/2018 Igor Oleksiyovych MOVENKO 1977 Sevastopol Ukrainian Anastasiya Romanivna MARTYNOVSKA 7. 40452/19 Trubach v.   Russia 23/06/2019 Ruslan Shavkatovich TRUBACH 1966 Feodosiya Russian, Ukrainian Olga Pavlovna TSEYTLINA 8. 40456/19 Ametov v.   Russia 23/07/2019 Kazim Abilvapovich AMETOV 1957 Sudak Russian, Ukrainian Olga Pavlovna TSEYTLINA 9. 52337/21 Balukh v.   Russia 05/06/2017 Volodymyr Grygorovych BALUKH 1971 Serebryanka Ukrainian Darya Oleksandrivna SVYRYDOVA