CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 octobre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s9EB91756 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:13.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s873EE8B1 { height:48.6pt } Published on 20 October 2025   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 24196/17 KHERSONSKYY REGIONALNYY MEDZHLIS KRYMSKYKH TATAR against Russia and 5 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 3 October 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES The circumstances of the cases The applications concern the banning of the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (hereinafter – “the Mejlis”) by the “Supreme Court of Crimea” on 16   April 2016. The self-governing institutions of the Crimean Tatar people are the Qurultai of the Crimean Tatar People (hereinafter – “the Qurultai”) - their national congress, and the Mejlis, which is the Crimean Tatar people’s representative executive body. In addition, in accordance with the Regulation on local self-governing bodies of Crimean Tatars of 2008, local self ‑ governing bodies – regional and local mejlises – are elected with the purpose of implementing the Mejlis’ and the Qurultai’s decisions and resolving, alone or with state and local authorities, various issues including matters affecting Crimean Tatars in the relevant administrative unit. All decisions on the creation of local mejlises, elected for a five-year mandate, and early termination of their mandate are in the exclusive competence of the Mejlis. The present applications were lodged by four organisations and two individuals. The applicant organisations are four local Mejlises, created and having operated in the Kherson region of Ukraine (see the appended table). The last elections of the applicants’ members were held in 2013-2015. The two individual applicants, who are Ukrainian nationals, are members of the local mejlises, namely the Henichesk Local Mejlis and the Feodosiia Local Mejlis. On 15 February 2016, and relying on the anti-extremism provisions of the Russian Federation law, the “Prosecutor of the Republic of Crimea” brought before the “Supreme Court of Crimea” an action against the Mejlis, seeking a judgment declaring the Mejlis as an extremist organisation and consequently banning its activities. On 12 April 2016 the activities of the Mejlis were temporarily suspended pending the “court’s decision”. On 26   April 2016 the “Supreme Court of Crimea” granted the prosecutorial action. On 29   September 2016 the Administrative Division of the Russian Supreme Court dismissed the appeal by the Mejlis. This appeal judgment is final and not amenable to any further appeal. The Kherson region where the first five applicants (the four organisations and one individual applicant) are located was occupied by Russia in February 2022. As a result, the functioning of the applicants as well as holding new elections to local Mejlises became virtually impossible. Currently, these applicants’ operating locations are still under occupation, with the exception of the city of Kherson, liberated by Ukraine in November 2022. The sixth applicant’s operating location is in Feodosiia, Crimea which has been under Russian occupation since 2014. On 10 July 2025, the Mejlis adopted a decision, stipulating that the mandates of the local Mejlises in the temporarily occupied territories of Ukraine shall be extended until the Mejlis decides on their termination and calls new elections. The applicants’ complaints The applicants complain that the order for the dissolution of the Mejlis and the ban on its activity also encompasses the local Mejlises, and therefore constitute an interference with the applicants’ freedom of association under Article 11 of the Convention. The applicants invoke Article 10 of the Convention and complain that they were prevented from communicating freely with other representatives of Crimean Tatar self-governance system and Crimean Tatars. The applicants, except for the applicant in application no. 22217/17, complain under Article 18 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 11, that the real purpose of the above-indicated ban was to silence and to punish the Crimean Tatar self-governing bodies for their political opposition. The applicants allege a violation of several breaches of their right to a fair trial under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. Specifically, they argue that the “Supreme Court of Crimea” was not “established by law” in light of the annexation of Crimea; that it had no relevant ratione materiae jurisdiction; and that in any event it was not independent and impartial due to the judges’ involvement in other political cases; and finally that the equality between the parties was violated due to the prosecutor’s presence in the administrative process. Relying on Article 7 of the Convention, the applicants argue that the designation of the Mejlis as an “extremist organisation” retroactively criminalised legitimate activities of Crimean Tatars. The two individual applicants further complain under Article 8 of the Convention that they were prevented from communicating freely with other representatives of the Crimean Tatar self-government bodies or with Crimean Tatars on professional and private matters. Furthermore, all applicants submit that they had no effective remedy as required by Article 13 of the Convention. Lastly, and relying on Thlimmenos v. Greece [GC], no. 34369/97, § 44, ECHR 2000-IV, the applicants complain under Article 14 of the Convention that no distinction was made between the specific status of the Mejlis as a representative body of the indigenous peoples, and other public associations of Crimean Tatars.       QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Have the applicants complied with the admissibility requirements set forth in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?   2.     Can the applicants, in view of their capacity as local Mejlises and members of local Mejlises, claim to be victims of a violation of the Convention, within the meaning of Article   34?   3.     In the affirmative, has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to freedom of association, contrary to Article   11 of the Convention (see Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea) , [GC], nos. 20958/14 and 38334/18, §§ 1123-28, 25   June 2024)?   4.     Concerning all applicants, except for the applicant in application no.   22217/17 who did not raise this complaint, were the restrictions imposed by the respondent State in the present case, purportedly pursuant to Article   11 of the Convention, applied for a purpose other than those envisaged by that provision, contrary to Article   18 of the Convention (see Ukraine v.   Russia (re   Crimea) [GC], cited above, §§ 1351-82)?   5.     Do the applicants have locus standi to invoke Article 6 of the Convention in relation to the proceedings concluded by the judgment of the Russian Supreme Court of 29 September 2016, in view of the fact that they were not a party to those proceedings (see   Athanassoglou and Others v.   Switzerland [GC], no. 27644/95, § 43, ECHR 2000-IV; Gorraiz Lizarraga and Others v. Spain , no. 62543/00, §§ 35-39, ECHR 2004-III)?   6.     If the reply to the preceding question is in the affirmative, were the proceedings concerning the ban on the Mejlis adjudicated by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea) , [GC], cited above, §§   943-46, 25 June 2024?   7.     Does the designation of the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People as an extremist organisation, which triggered the applicability of Russian anti-extremism legislation in Crimea, comply with the requirements of Article   7 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea) [GC], cited above, §§ 1274-78)?   8.     Concerning the applicants in applications nos. 32201/17 and 22217/17, has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their private life and correspondence, in breach of Article   8 §   1 of the Convention?   9.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their Convention complaints, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?   10.     Have the applicants suffered discrimination contrary to Article   14 of the Convention (see Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea) [GC], cited above, §§   1181-90)?   In particular, have the applicants been subjected to a difference in treatment in view of their civic and political activities?       APPENDIX List of applications   No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Operating location Represented by 1. 24196/17 Khersonskyy regionalnyy medzhlis krymskykh tatar v. Russia 21/03/2017 KHERSONSKYY REGIONALNYY MEDZHLIS KRYMSKYKH TATAR Novooleksiivka, Henichesk district, Kherson region Borys Volodymyrovych BABIN 2. 24355/17 Shchaslyvtsevskyy mistsevyy mejlis krymskykh tatar v. Russia 21/03/2017 SHCHASLYVTSEVSKYY MISTSEVYY MEJLIS KRYMSKYKH TATAR Shchaslyvtseve, Henichesk district, Kherson region Borys Volodymyrovych BABIN 3. 25061/17 Strilkovskyy mistsevyy mejlis krymskykh tatar v.   Russia 20/03/2017 STRILKOVSKYY MISTSEVYY MEJLIS KRYMSKYKH TATAR Strilkove, Henichesk district, Kherson region Borys Volodymyrovych BABIN 4. 32319/17 Partyzanskyy mistsevyy mejlis krymskykh tatar v.   Russia 18/04/2017 PARTYZANSKYY MISTSEVYY MEJLIS KRYMSKYKH TATAR Rykove, Henichesk district, Kherson region Borys Volodymyrovych BABIN 5. 32201/17 Ablyazov v. Russia 18/04/2017 Nariman Rustemovych ABLYAZOV Henicheskyi Mistsevyi Mejlis Henichesk, Kherson region   6. 22217/17 Kadyrov v. Russia 09/03/2017 Suleyman Serverovych KADYROV Feodosiyskyi Rehionalnyi Mejlis Feodosiia, Crimea