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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sFF093797 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:32.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Published on 20 October 2025   FOURTH SECTION Applications nos. 38644/15 and 38672/15 BLAGODIYNA ORGANIZATSIYA FOND KRYM against Russia and Ryza Fevziyovych SHEVKIYEV against Russia lodged on 28 July 2015 and 28 July 2015 respectively communicated on 3 October 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The circumstances of the case The applications arise from the conflict between Ukraine and the Russian Federation, following the invasion and annexation of Crimea by Russia in 2014. They were introduced by Charity Foundation “Fond Krym” (hereinafter – “the CF”) and its director Mr Ryza Shevkiyev, a Ukrainian national. The CF was registered on 18 January 1993 under Ukrainian law and is an informal assembly of the Crimean Tatar people, with the mission of implementing the decisions of the Qurultai and the Mejlis. According to the Statute of the CF, the Mejlis was its governing body; the relevant provision of that Statute was removed in 2002. In 2003 the applicant organisation purchased a building which, since 1991, had been designated as a cultural heritage asset under the applicable domestic legislation. In 2004-2005 the applicant organisation carried out renovation works on the property, which were duly authorised by the competent Ukrainian authorities. In 2007 the CF founded a newspaper, Avdet , and registered it as printed media. The headquarters of the Mejlis and Avdet were located in the same building. Following the Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014, beginning in October of that year, the de facto “authorities” conducted inspections of the building in question and identified multiple breaches relating to its status as a protected object under Russian law. This ultimately led to the confiscation of the building by the “courts” in Crimea. On 18 November 2014 the “Kyivskyy District Court of Simferopol” imposed an administrative fine of RUB 4,500,000 [1] on the CF for an alleged violation of the cultural heritage legislation in connection with the property, upheld on appeal on 29 January 2015 by the “Supreme Court of Crimea”. On the same date the “Kyivskyy District Court of Simferopol” in a different proceeding imposed an administrative fine of RUB 350,000 on the CF Director, namely the applicant Mr Shevkiyev in application no. 38672/15, under the same provision of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offences. This judgment was upheld on 26 March 2015 by the “Supreme Court of Crimea” but the fine was decreased to RUB 100,000 [2] . In both proceedings the “courts” found that the following administrative offences had been committed: conversion of the attic into office premises; transferring of the premises to the third parties - the Mejlis and the newspaper Avdet without prior authorisation of the authorities; and technical installations without pre-approval. On 30 April 2015 the “Commercial Court of Crimea” ordered the confiscation of the building; subsequent appeals were unsuccessful, culminating in the decision of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 26 December 2019. The applicants’ complaints Mr Shevkiyev in application no. 38672/15 alleges a violation of Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 thereto, asserting that the “courts” involved in his administrative case did not constitute “independent and impartial tribunals established by law”, and that the fine imposed on him was based on the retroactive application of Russian law. Relying on Article 7 of the Convention he further claims that Russian law provisions were applied to him retroactively and that he could not foresee in 2004-2005 when carrying out the renovations that he would subsequently be liable under Russian law. Referring to Articles 6 and 7 of the Convention, and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 thereto, the applicant organisation CF in application no. 38644/15 complains that the building was confiscated pursuant to decisions based on provisions of Russian law which were applied retroactively. Relying on Article 10 and Article 11 of the Convention, the CF argues that punishing it for housing the Mejlis and the Avdet in its premises, which were not independent legal entities but the CF’s own organs, constituted violations of its rights to freedom of expression and freedom of association respectively. Finally, relying on Article 18 of the Convention, the CF alleges that the underlying purpose was to punish and silence the political opposition represented by the self-governing bodies 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.     Did the applicants have a fair hearing 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], nos. 20958/14 and 38334/18, §§ 943-46, 25 June 2024?   3.     Do the proceedings against the applicants triggering the applicability of Russian 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)?   In particular, do the sanctions imposed on the applicants based on the provisions of the Russian legislation constitute the imposition of a “penalty” or a finding of criminal liability within the meaning of Article 7 of the Convention (see G.I.E.M. S.r.l. and Others v. Italy [GC], nos. 1828/06 and 2   others, §§ 210-11, 28 June 2018)?   4.     Was the legislation of the Russian Federation, on which the applicants were held liable, officially published in Crimea at the time of the proceedings concerning the applicants? If the answer is in the affirmative, the Government are requested to produce a copy of the official publication of the full text. If it was not published, can the law on the basis of which the applicants were sanctioned be considered sufficiently accessible and foreseeable, as required by Article 7 of the Convention?   5.     In application no.   38644/15, has there been a violation of the applicant organisation’s right to freedom of expression on account of sanctioning it for housing the Avdet newspaper, contrary to Article   10 of the Convention?   6.     In application no.   38644/15, has there been a violation of the applicant organisation’s right to freedom of association on account of punishing it for housing the Mejlis, contrary to Article   11 of the Convention?   7.     Have the decisions of the “courts” confiscating the building (application no. 38644/15) and imposing a fine (both applications) interfered with the applicants’ rights protected under Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention? In particular, were they lawful?   8.     Were the restrictions imposed by the respondent State in application no. 38644/15, purportedly pursuant to Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention, applied for a purpose other than envisaged by those provisions, contrary to Article   18 of the Convention (see Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea) [GC], cited above, §§ 1351-82)?   [1] RUB 4,500,000 corresponded to around EUR 66,000 in 2015. [2] RUB 100,000 corresponded to around EUR 1,500 in 2015.