CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 février 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s54AB6003 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } Published on 24 February 2025   FOURTH SECTION Application no.   2972/15 Oleksandr Oleksandrovych YAKUBOV and Others against Russia and 24 other applications (see table appended) PROCEDURAL INFORMATION Following a preliminary examination of the admissibility of the applications on 6 February 2025, the Court decided, under Rule   54 §   2   (b) of the Rules of Court, that notice of the applications should be given to the Government of Russia. In some applications, other complaints were raised. Their examination has been adjourned, or they have been struck out of the Court’s list of cases or declared inadmissible by the Court, sitting in a single-judge formation, assisted by a rapporteur as provided for in Article 24   §   2 of the Convention. For further information on the procedure following communication of an application brought against Russia, subject of well-established case law of the Court, please refer to the Court’s website . SUBJECT MATTER The applications concern complaints raised under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention relating to tribunal not established by law which are the subject of well-established case law of the Court (see Ukraine v. Russia ( re Crimea) [GC], nos. 20958/14 and 38334/18, §§ 943-46 and 1011-22, 25 June 2024).   APPENDIX – STATEMENT OF FACTS List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (“tribunal not established by law”) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth/registration   Representative’s name and location Summary of facts Type of proceedings Relevant domestic decision Date Other complaints under well-established case-law     2972/15 17/12/2014 Oleksandr Oleksandrovych YAKUBOV 1951   Sergiy Volodymyrovych KUZMENKO 1978   Oleksandr Ivanovych SAKHNO 1974   Dmytro Ivanovych Borodkin Kyiv The applicants, members of a cooperative, asked a court to uphold changes to the structure and management of a cooperative, including the election of the first applicant as the chairman. These changes were upheld by Ukrainian courts before 2014, overruled by Russian “courts” in Crimea. civil "Appeal Court of the city of Sevastopol", 10/11/2014       9857/15 04/02/2015 Ruslan Nikolayevich CHEREPNIN 1980   Roman Yuriyovych Martynovskyy Kyiv The applicant is a defendant in debt recovery civil proceedings. In 2002, the Leninsky District Court of Sevastopol lifted an interim measure concerning the foreclosure of the applicant’s apartment. The applicant received a copy of the decision in 2013 and appealed against it. On 24 April 2014 the "Sevastopol City Court of Appeal" dismissed his appeal on the merits and the subsequent cassation appeal was rejected. civil Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 07/08/2014       16390/15 28/03/2015 Ayshe Abduramanovna BABAYEVA 1941       The applicant, a formerly deported Crimean Tatar, sought to receive rehabilitation documents with respective benefits, to no avail. civil Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 28/10/2014 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law;   Art. 14 - prohibition of discrimination - discrimination by Russian authorities on the grounds of the applicant’s ethnic origin (Crimean Tatar).     41806/15 11/08/2015 Anatoliy Fedorovich RYABOKON 1944 Died in 2018   Heir: Yuriy Anatolyevich RYABOKON Born in 1971   Yuriy Anatolyevich Ryabokon Kyiv The applicant, a co-owner of the mortgaged property, sought the invalidation of a mortgage agreement; his claims were dismissed in three instances of judicial review. civil Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 13/02/2015       44753/15 03/09/2015 UKRAINSKIY FINANSOVO-PROMYSHLENNYY KONTSERN UFPK       The applicant company sought to recover a debt owed to it by another company in the process of bankruptcy, initiated under the Ukrainian law. Russian courts declined to transfer the case to the relevant court in Ukraine with jurisdiction over the matter. other (military, commercial) “Commercial Court of the Republic of Crimea”, 10/07/2015       59289/15 18/11/2015 Yelena Aleksandrovna RYSHCHUK 1964       The applicant, a former nurse at a military sanatorium under the Ministry of Defence of Ukraine, was asked to voluntarily resign to take up the same position under Russian law. However, when she re-applied for the job, her application was rejected, prompting her to file a complaint with the court. The "court" of first instance partially upheld her claim, declaring her dismissal unlawful and awarding her 3,000 Russian roubles (RUB) in non-pecuniary damages from the sanatorium. She pursued the remaining claims for reinstatement, compensation for lost wages, and discrimination in higher “courts”, but her efforts were unsuccessful. civil Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 06/10/2015       19795/16 14/03/2016 Shakhin Alliyevich MAMEDOV 1970       The applicant was convicted for murder on 26/12/2014 by the "Central District Court of Simferopol" and sentenced to life imprisonment under Russian law. His appeals were unsuccessful. criminal "Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea", 05/03/2018       76870/16 24/11/2016 Roza Ivanovna KAVALEROVA 1941       The applicant, a co-owner of a flat together with her son’s family, sought to confirm her title under the Russian law with a view to subsequently have an ownership certificate issued in her name; to no avail. civil Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 28/09/2016 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law.     25219/17 14/03/2017 Mykhaylo Oleksiyovych SHCHUR 1964       The applicant, who declined Russian nationality, initiated two sets of domestic proceedings, both of which were unsuccessful: (1) Case no. 2-647/2015, seeking to invalidate the applicant’s contracts with "Krymgazseti" on the grounds that it was not a legal successor of "Krymgaz", the Ukrainian gas provider prior to 2014; (2) Case no. 2-365/2016, alleging discrimination and seeking to halt actions by a Russian commercial bank, which had repeatedly refused to process transactions for the applicant due to the absence of the required documents, including proof of residence status in Crimea, a Russian tax ID, and a Russian phone number. civil (1) "Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea", 29/09/2016;   (2) "Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea", 14/03/2017. Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law,   Art. 14 - prohibition of discrimination - in connection with the second set of proceedings: discrimination by Russian authorities on the grounds of the applicant’s nationality and pro-Ukrainian position.   20411/18 18/04/2018 Yuriy Georgiyovych GAVRYLYUK 1974       The applicant was denied entry to Crimea at the so-called border and subsequently challenged the decision in court. Due to disrupted postal connections between Ukraine and Crimea, the applicant, residing in Ukraine, attempted to submit his cassation appeal via email. However, the "Presidium of the Supreme Court of Crimea" rejected the appeal on 27/10/2017 for failure to comply with the procedural requirements. Further attempts to challenge this decision were unsuccessful. civil Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 02/02/2018     26225/18 23/05/2018 Anatoliy Viktorovich BROVKO 1950   Ruslan Valentinovich TARASOV 1900       The first applicant is an owner of a garage; the second applicant built an extension to it, allegedly without authorisation. They claimed restoration of the electricity supply to the garage. civil   Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 01/12/2017 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law.   46034/18 11/09/2018 Aleksandr Nikolayevich KOZAK 1961       The applicant’s driving licence was suspended, and he was fined for refusing to re-register his car under the Russian legislation. The applicant sought restoration of the time-limit to appeal against the above decisions but to no avail. administrative “Razdolnoye District Court of the Republic of Crimea” 13/03/2018   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law,   Art. 14 - prohibition of discrimination - the applicant alleged that he was discriminated against because of his opinion and his being part of the Ukrainian minority in Crimea.   55094/18 08/11/2018 Sergey Nikolayevich ZYKOV 1955       The applicant sought to recover his arrested bank deposits due to termination of a criminal case against him and initiated two sets of proceedings on different grounds, both unsuccessful in “courts”: 1) recovery of lost profit, and 2) compensation for damage caused by the unlawful prosecution. civil (1) Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 11/05/2018;   (2) Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 18/10/2018   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law.   12725/19 25/02/2019 Sandi BREZOVNIK 1970   Yana Valeriyivna Sokolova Kharkiv The applicant, a Slovenian national, was living in Kharkiv, Ukraine at the time the domestic proceedings in his case were pending in Crimea. As a borrower under a loan agreement, the debtor’s property in Yalta, Crimea, was designated as security for the debt. A mortgage agreement with deferred effect was concluded concerning this property, but the applicant never registered ownership of it. After unsuccessful attempts to enforce the debt in both Ukraine and Russia, the applicant filed a civil claim with the "Yalta City Court" on 20/04/2015. Subsequently, his claim was merged with another case concerning the same property, and the applicant was granted the status of a third party with independent claims. The applicant’s claims were dismissed, and his subsequent appeals were unsuccessful. civil Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 30/11/2018 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law.   27847/19 08/05/2019 Valeriy Ivanovych YERCHENKO 1951       The applicant sought enforcement of the Yalta City Court’s decision of 20/12/2012 by the Russian authorities. After unsuccessful attempts to enforce the 2012 decision, the applicant-initiated proceedings in 2018 before the Russian courts, specifically requesting a change in the manner of enforcement and the replacement of a party in the enforcement proceedings, but these efforts were unsuccessful. civil Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 16/11/2018     48764/19 09/09/2019 Oleg Valentinovich GOLOVKOV 1971       The applicant unsuccessfully sought compensation from a depositors’ protection fund in Crimea for his bank deposit made in Ukrainian bank between 2011 and 2013. civil Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 27/03/2019     12702/20 26/02/2020 Oleg Anatolyevich FROLOV 1976       The applicant’s Ukrainian military service book was confiscated when a Russian military service book was issued by the Russian military authorities. He filed a claim seeking protection of his dignity and rights, along with compensation for non-pecuniary damage caused by the allegedly unlawful actions of the military authorities. On appeal, the military commission was ordered to return the applicant’s Ukrainian military service book, while the remainder of his complaints were dismissed. civil "Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea", 26/09/2019 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law.   21667/20 07/05/2020 ARENDNOYE PREDPRIYATIYE YALTAMONOLITSTROY 2011       The applicant’s company challenged the tax authorities’ refusal to grant it a state registration as a legal entity under the Russian law. other (military, commercial) Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 08/11/2019 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law.   1881/21 24/02/2021 Andrey Petrovich SANDOVSKIY 1966       The applicant, a Ukrainian national residing in Crimea, was apprehended on 17/12/2014 at the so-called border between Ukraine and Crimea while returning from Lviv and subsequently arrested. On 05/11/2015 he was convicted of smuggling precursors across the Russian border and sentenced to 11 years’ imprisonment. The applicant’s appeal against his conviction was unsuccessful. criminal Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 12/11/2020     24035/21 12/03/2021 Oleg Anatolyevich FROLOV 1976       The applicant, a dual Ukrainian and a Russian national residing in Crimea, had his Ukrainian driving license confiscated by the traffic police in Crimea upon receiving a Russian driving licence. Relying on Ukrainian domestic law and international legal provisions, the applicant pursued civil proceedings to recover his Ukrainian driving license from the Russian authorities, but his efforts were unsuccessful. civil Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 23/09/2020 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law.   52902/21 19/12/2019 Mykhaylo Oleksiyovych SHCHUR 1964       The applicant complained domestically that he had been discriminated against by various state authorities in the Crimea on account of his political views and his lack of a Russian passport or other documents, with the result that he had been refused various services. In this regard, he initiated a number of proceedings challenging the actions of the authorities and seeking non-pecuniary damages. These proceedings were unsuccessful and resulted in a single decision № M-573/2018, in which the applicant’s cassation was denied. civil "Supreme Court of Crimea", 22/07/2019 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law;   Art. 14 - prohibition of discrimination - the applicant alleged discrimination based on his political views, refusal to accept Russian nationality, language.   7380/22 05/11/2021 Viktor Vladimirovich KRETININ 1955   Sergey Petrovich Maryushin Verkhorechye The applicant asked a “court” to declare defendant’s buildings unauthorised constructions and to authorise their demolition because his right to unrestricted passage was impaired. civil Forth Cassation Court of General Jurisdiction, 15/06/2021 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law.   30200/22 21/04/2022 Mykhaylo Oleksiyovych SHCHUR 1964       The applicant, acting as a private plaintiff in a criminal case that ultimately resulted in an acquittal upheld on appeal faced separate proceedings regarding legal fees incurred in the case. By a decision of the "Krasnoperekopsk District Court" on 27/07/2021, the applicant was ordered to pay RUB 6,000. Subsequent appeals against this decision were unsuccessful. civil Fourth Cassation Court of General Jurisdiction, 18/03/2022 Prot. 1 Art. 1 - interference with peaceful enjoyment of possessions   - the applicant alleged that the court-ordered obligation to pay RUB 6,000 in compensation for legal fees is enforceable in Crimea.   28515/24 29/05/2014 Dmitriy Yevgenyevich RUBLEV 1981 Died in 2016   Heir Yevgeniy Vladimirovich RUBLEV Born in 1952       The applicant challenged the prosecutor’s decision to suspend criminal proceedings, where the applicant was a suspect. In another set of proceedings, the applicant unsuccessfully sought non-pecuniary damage on account of omissions by the law enforcement authorities in the same criminal case. civil (1) Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 16/08/2016;   (2) Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 18/08/2016     29060/24 30/12/2014 Nikolay Aleksandrovich BELOBORODOV 1982       The applicant, a former police officer, was convicted of abuse of authority and bribery, and sentenced to 6 years 6 months’ imprisonment by the Zaliznychnyy District Court of Simferopol on 14/12/2012. The applicant’s appeals were unsuccessful and while his sentence was upheld, it was requalified under Russian criminal law provisions. criminal Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 07/08/2014 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law.