CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 septembre 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s2E91A821 { width:115.76%; border-collapse:collapse } .s4C1702D { width:6.7%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s28F59DCE { width:45.04%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s656A83ED { width:11.66%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s1F4E887E { width:16.68%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s64471B2F { width:19.92%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s14AC249C { width:6.7%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4E285F52 { width:45.04%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC7195DD9 { width:11.66%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4C6C1307 { width:16.68%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s1012E5E4 { width:19.92%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s39E5096F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } Published on 9 October 2023   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 22355/16 Aleksandr Alekseyevich DOMANOV and Others against Russia lodged on 24 March 2016 communicated on 2 September 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application originates from the conflict between Ukraine and the Russian Federation when the latter asserted its jurisdiction over Crimea in 2014. It concerns, among other things, the allegedly unlawful conviction and subsequent detention of the applicants who are serving their life sentences in correctional detention facilities on the territory of Russia. The applicants were parties to the same one set of criminal proceedings conducted by Russian courts in Crimea. The applicants complain under, inter alia , Article 5 of the Convention that their detention after conviction did not have legal basis since they were convicted for crimes committed before 2014, that is, before the effective control over the peninsula was asserted by Russia. According to the applicants, the Russian Federation did not have jurisdiction to detain them or prosecute them. Some of the applicants also allege a violation of Article 6 of the Convention, namely that the courts in Crimea examining their cases were not independent and impartial tribunals established by law, since those courts applied the substantive and procedural laws of Russia, in violation of Ukrainian laws. Furthermore, referring, inter alia , to Article 3 of Protocol no. 4 to the Convention the applicants complain that they were transferred from Crimea to detention facilities in the Russian Federation to serve their sentences. Thus, the applicants state that they, being Ukrainian nationals, were expelled from the territory of their State. Moreover, referring to Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 3 of Protocol no. 4 thereto, the applicants allege that they were treated as Russian nationals notwithstanding the fact that they were in fact Ukrainian nationals, and they allege that this represented a discriminatory treatment. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Have the applicants complied with the admissibility requirements set forth in Article   35   of the Convention?   2.     Were the applicants deprived of their liberty in breach of Article   5 §   1   (a) of the Convention? In particular, as regards the judgment delivered by the courts of Crimea, which was upheld on appeal, were the applicants convicted by a “competent court” within the meaning of Article 5   § 1 (a) of the Convention? To that end, did the decisions taken by the courts in these applicants’ cases comply with the requirement of lawfulness within the meaning of Article 5 of the Convention provisions (see, mutatis mutandis , Mozer v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia [GC], no.   11138/10, § 150, 23   February 2016)?   3.     Did the applicants, who raise complaints under this provision, have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against them by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?   4.     Were the applicants, Ukrainian nationals, expelled from the territory of their State, in breach of Article   3 §   1 of Protocol No.   4 and/or Article 8 of the Convention?   5.     Have the applicants suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of their rights under Article   3 §   1 of Protocol No.   4 contrary to Article 14 of the Convention?   6.     Finally, did the alleged acts which gave rise to the applicants’ complaints have a basis in “law” within the meaning of the Convention provisions relied on by them? APPENDIX List of applicants: No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality Place of residence 1. Aleksandr Alekseyevich DOMANOV 1953 Ukrainian Simferopol 2. Yuriy Mikhaylovich PASKAL 1966 Ukrainian Simferopol 3. Shakhin Alliyevich MAMEDOV 1970 Ukrainian Simferopol