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 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s65E06E64 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 9 October 2023   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 44712/18 Suleyman Serverovych KADYROV against Russia and 6 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 2 September 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications originate from the conflict between Ukraine and the Russian Federation when the latter asserted its jurisdiction over Crimea in 2014. The applicants are Crimean Tatars and their complaints concern, among other things, their alleged persecution for their pro-Ukrainian position. All applications except for applications nos. 29251/19 and 56163/19 concern allegedly unlawful criminal proceedings instituted against the applicants by the Russian authorities in Crimea. Most of the applicants were charged with offences related either to their alleged participation in the activities of organisations which are regarded as terrorist organisations in the territory of Russia or to their participation in a mass protest against the separation of Crimea in Simferopol which took place on 26 February 2014. In application no. 29251/19 the applicant was sentenced to five-day administrative arrest to for displaying the symbols of an extremist organisation, namely for reposts he made on the social network Facebook, which contained the symbols of the organisation “Hizb ut-Tahrir”. The applicant in application no. 56163/19 alleges that he was abducted and tortured by Russian state agents in order to obtain a false testimony from him against a group of arrested Crimean Tatars accused of their alleged participation in the “Hizb ut-Tahrir” organisation’s activities. The applicants in all applications except for applications nos. 44712/18, 45219/19 and 56354/19 allege numerous violations of Article 5 of the Convention based on, inter alia , the alleged lack of legal grounds for their detention and its excessive length. All the applicants, except for the applicants in applications nos.   44743/18, 7775/19 and 56163/19, also allege that the criminal or administrative proceedings brought against them fell short of the guarantees of a fair hearing including, inter alia , the principles of equality of arms and lawfulness, independence and impartiality of a tribunal. They rely on Article   6 of the Convention in this regard. Furthermore, the applicants in applications nos. 44712/18 and 45219/19 rely on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention and allege that that their convictions have been based on statements by anonymous witnesses. In addition, the applicants in applications nos. 44712/18, 7775/19, 29251/19, 45219/19 and 56354/19 allege a violation of Article 7 of the Convention. In particular, the applicant in application no. 44712/18 alleges that he was convicted for publicly calling for actions aimed at violating the territorial integrity of Russia, while Crimea was part of Ukraine under international law. The applicant in application no. 56354/19 complains that Russian legislation, namely the legal provisions concerning the organisation Tabligh Jamaat which is a proscribed organisation in Russia, could not be applied on the territory of Crimea and that this organisation is not prohibited in Ukraine. The applicants in the remaining applications allege that they were convicted under Russian law for crimes allegedly committed before Russia asserted its jurisdiction over Crimea. In the remaining applications the applicants state that, by accusing them of criminal offences, the Russian Federation applied its law retrospectively to the disadvantage of the accused. The applicant in application no. 56163/19 further complains that he was abducted and tortured by the Russian Federal Security Service agents and that the investigation into those events was ineffective. He relies on Article   3 of the Convention in this regard. Furthermore, the applicant in application no. 44712/18 alleges that the Russian authorities, by prosecuting him for disseminating information that Crimea was part of Ukraine, interfered with his   right to freedom of expression in breach of Article 10 of the Convention. Also, referring to Article 11 of the Convention, the applicant in application no. 7775/19 alleges that the criminal prosecution brought against him for staging a protest against the separation of Crimea breached his right to freedom of assembly. Lastly, the applicants in applications nos. 7775/19, 29251/19 and   45219/19 also complain that their detentions and subsequent convictions were aimed at suppressing their opposition to “the occupying power”, in breach of Article 18 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Have the applicants complied with the admissibility requirements set forth in Article   35 of the Convention?   2.     Has the applicant in application no. 56163/19 been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment in breach of Article   3 of the Convention?   Having regard to the procedural protection from inhuman or degrading treatment (see Labita v.   Italy [GC], no.   26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000-IV), has the investigation by the authorities complied with the requirements of Article   3 of the Convention?   3.     In application no. 56163/19, was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article   5   §   1 of the Convention?   4.     In application no. 29251/19, was the applicant’s deprivation of liberty following his conviction justified under Article 5 § 1 (a) of the Convention?   5.     Was the length of the applicants’ pre-trial detention in applications nos.   44743/18 and 7775/19 in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article   5 §   3 of the Convention?   6.     Having regard to the allegations made by the applicants in applications nos. 44712/18, 29251/19, 45219/19 and 56354/19, 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 this connection, was the applicants’ case in applications nos. 45219/19 and 56354/19 dealt with by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?   In applications nos. 44712/18 and 45219/19, were the applicants’ rights guaranteed by Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention respected in so far as the identity of some of the witnesses who testified against them remained undisclosed during the trial?   Did the absence of a prosecuting party in application no. 29251/19 entail a violation of the principles of equality of arms, adversarial procedure and impartiality under Article   6 § 1 of the Convention (in this connection, see   Karelin   v.   Russia , no. 926/08, §§ 69-85, 20   September 2016)?   7.     Did the relevant provisions on the basis of which the applicants in applications nos. 44712/18, 7775/19, 29251/19, 45219/19 and 56354/19 were convicted fulfil the qualitative requirements under Article 7 of the Convention (see Scoppola v.   Italy   (no. 2)   [GC], no. 10249/03, § 99, 17   September 2009)?   8.     Having regard to the allegations made by the applicant in application no. 44712/18, has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression, in particular, his   right to impart information, within the meaning of Article   10 §   1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference justified under Article   10 §   2 of the Convention?   9.     As regards application no. 7775/19, has there been an interference with the applicant’s   right to freedom of peaceful assembly within the meaning of Article   11 §   1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference justified under Article 11   §   2 of the Convention?   10.     Were the restrictions imposed by the respondent State, purportedly pursuant to Articles 5 and 6 as regards application no. 29251/19, Article 6 as regards application no. 45219/19, and Articles 5, 6 and 11 as regards application no. 7775/19, applied for a purpose other than those envisaged by those provisions, contrary to Article   18 of the Convention?   11.     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 cases No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Represented by 1. 44712/18 Kadyrov v.   Russia 05/09/2018 Suleyman Serverovych KADYROV 1962 Feodosiya Ukrainian Aleksandr Vasilyevich POPKOV 2. 44743/18 Chapukh v.   Russia 24/09/2018 Asan Enverovych CHAPUKH 1953 Simferopol Ukrainian Anastasiya Romanivna MARTYNOVSKA 3. 7775/19 Asanov and Degermendzhi v.   Russia 19/12/2018 Ali Akhmedovich ASANOV 1982 Urozhaynoye Ukrainian Mustafa Bekirovich DEGERMENDZHI 1989 CRIMEE Ukrainian Anastasiya Romanivna MARTYNOVSKA 4. 29251/19 Kurbedinov v.   Russia 02/05/2019 Emil Makhsudovich KURBEDINOV 1981 Simferopol Ukrainian Sergiy Anatoliyovych ZAYETS 5. 45219/19 Asanov and Degermendzhi v.   Russia 14/08/2019 Ali Akhmedovich ASANOV 1982 Urozhaynoye Ukrainian Mustafa Bekirovich DEGERMENDZHI 1989 CRIMEE Ukrainian Anastasiya Romanivna MARTYNOVSKA 6. 56163/19 Ayvazov v.   Russia 12/10/2019 Raim Khalilovich AYVAZOV 1994 Simferopol Ukrainian Nikolay Sergeyevich ZBOROSHENKO 7. 56354/19 Suleymanov v.   Russia 16/10/2019 Renat Rustemovich SULEYMANOV 1969 Kamenka - KBR Ukrainian Roman Yuryovych MARTYNOVSKYY