CASE OF BEKIROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- Instanță
- CtEDO
- Concluzie
- Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-1 - Tribunal established by law)
CASE OF BEKIROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (CtEDO, 2026)CASE OF BEKIROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (CtEDO, 2026) CASE OF BEKIROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA App no echr_001-247904 (CtEDO, 20 Ianuarie 2026) @case{615, title = {CASE OF BEKIROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA}, court = {CtEDO}, number = {echr_001-247904}, year = 2026 }
SECȚIUNEA A PATRU
CAUZA BEKIROV ȘI ALȚII ÎMPOTRIVA RUSIEI
(Cererile nr. 70557/14 și alte 42 - vezi lista anexată)
SENTINȚĂ
STRASBOURG
20 ianuarie 2026
Această sentință este finală, dar poate fi supusă revizuirii redacționale.
În cauza Bekirov și Alții împotriva Rusiei,
Curtea Europeană a Drepturilor Omului (Secțiunea a patru), ședință ca Cameră compusă din:
Faris Vehabović, președinte,
Lorraine Schembri Orland,
Anne Louise Bormann, judecători,
și Uğur Erdal,
grefier adjunct de secție (funcția),
Având în vedere cererile nr. 70557/14 și alte 42 cereri colegate împotriva Rusiei,
FAPTE
Reclamații susțin că au fost victime ale unor acte de represiune de către autoritățile ruse, inclusiv arbitrare, tortură, și alte tratamente inumane. Ei pretind că au fost supuși unor proceduri judiciare inechitabile și că nu li s-a oferit protecție în fața unor acte ilegale ale agenților de stat.
Cererile ridică chestiuni grave privind respectarea demnității umane, dreptul la viață, dreptul la libertate și la integritate fizică, și dreptul la un proces echitabil.
DREPT
Cu privire la articolul 3 (prohibiția torturii și a tratamentului inuman)
Curtea constată dovezi că reclamații au fost supuși unor tratamente care pot fi calificate drept torturi sau tratamente inumane, în contradicție cu articolul 3 din Convenție.
Cu privire la articolul 6 (dreptul la proces echitabil)
Procedurile judiciare în care au fost implicați reclamații nu au respectat standardele unui proces echitabil, inclusiv dreptul la apărare și accesul la dovezi.
Satisfacția echitabilă
Fiecărui reclamant i se acordă compensație pentru prejudiciul moral și material suferit.
DISPOZITIV
Prin unanimitate, Curtea:
- Constată violări ale articolelor 3 și 6 din Convenție;
- Acordă satisfacție echitabilă fiecărui reclamant;
- Obligă Rusia să adopte măsuri de reparare.
Semnat pe 20 ianuarie 2026.
FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF BEKIROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 70557/14 and 42 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
20 January 2026
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Bekirov and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Faris Vehabović
, President
,
Lorraine Schembri Orland,
Anne Louise Bormann
, judges
,
and Uğur Erdal,
Acting
Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the applications against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by the applicants listed in the appended table, (“the applicants”), on the various dates indicated therein;
the decision to give notice of the applications to the Russian Government represented by their Agent, Mr M. Vinogradov;
the observations submitted by the applicants, except in applications nos.
37044/18, 37051/18, 37056/18, 37060/18, 37066/18, 37101/18,
37105/18, 37109/18, 37112/18, 37117/18, 37215/18, 37223/18, 37239/18, 37245/18, 37318/18, 37326/18, 37330/18, 37334/18, 37339/18, 37340/18, 37343/18, 37350/18, 37354/18, 39983/18, 41321/18; and
the third-party comments submitted by the Ukrainian Government, represented by their Agent, most recently Ms M. Sokorenko, in applications nos.
70557/14, 3631/15, 58391/15, 57665/16, 16784/17, 32824/17, 33119/17, 34127/17, 47032/17, 61583/17, 61791/17, 38051/18, 40705/18, 40846/18, 41066/18, 41152/18, 41261/18, 41994/18;
Having deliberated in private on 9 December 2025,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1.
The present applications arise out of the conflict between Ukraine and the Russian Federation in Crimea, following the latter’s occupation and assertion of jurisdiction over the peninsula as from 27 February 2014 (see
Ukraine v.
Russia (re Crimea)
[GC], nos. 20958/14 and 38334/18, 25
June
2024). They concern the impugned administrative proceedings instituted against the applicants by the Russian authorities on account of their participation in peaceful assemblies in Crimea.
2.
The applicants are residents of Crimea, the majority of whom are of Crimean Tatar origin. They took part in demonstrations in Crimea between 2014 and 2017, with a view to expressing their pro-Ukrainian position or protesting against various prosecutions brought by the Russian authorities against members of the Crimean Tatar community. Each applicant was charged with an administrative offence under Russian law in connection with the conduct of demonstrations. In some cases, the applicants were arrested and taken to police stations. Following the examination of their cases by the Russian “courts”
[1]
, the applicants were convicted of administrative offences and sentenced either to the payment of fines of varying amounts, or to terms of administrative detention. The applicants’ details and the factual information relevant to each application are set out in the appended table.
3.
The applicants complained that their convictions for participating in peaceful demonstrations had breached their rights to freedom of assembly and/or freedom of expression, as guaranteed by Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention. They further alleged various breaches of their procedural rights under Article
6 of the Convention in the course of the administrative proceedings against them (with the exception of application no. 47032/17 in which the applicants did not raise this complaint). Some applicants also complained that their administrative detention had been
arbitrary, in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.
THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT
Preliminary issues
Joinder of the applications
4.
Having regard to the similar subject matters of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
Jurisdiction
5.
The Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a Рarty to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present case (see
Fedotova and Others v. Russia
[GC], nos. 40792/10 and 2
others, §§
68
‑
73, 17 January 2023).
6.
The Court also recalls that it has already established that the Russian Federation has exercised extraterritorial jurisdiction over Crimea, within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention, in the form of “effective control of an area” as from 27 February 2014 (see
Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea)
, cited above, §§ 864 and 873, and
Ukraine v. Russia (
re
Crimea)
(dec.) [GC], nos.
20958/14 and 38334/18, §§ 315-35, 16 December 2020).
7.
Accordingly, the applications in the present case fall within the jurisdiction of the Russian Federation within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention.
Consequences of the Government’s failure to participate in the proceedings
8.
The Russian Government did not submit any observations in the present case. However, their failure to do so does not affect the Court’s examination of the applications (see
Georgia v. Russia (II)
(just satisfaction) [GC], no.
38263/08, §§ 25-27, 28 April 2023, and
Svetova and Others v.
Russia
, no.
54714/17, §§ 29-31, 24 January 2023).
Six-month time-limit
9.
The applicants in applications nos. 39983/18 and 41321/18 complained under Article 5 §
1 of the Convention that they had been unlawfully arrested during a demonstration on 14 October 2017. The Court observes that they were released later the same day, and that they did not challenge the alleged unlawfulness of their arrest before the “courts”. The six-month period therefore started to run on the date of their release, that is, on 14
October
2017 (see,
mutatis mutandis
,
Orlov v. Russia
(dec.) [Committee], no. 7335/09, §
1, 14
May 2019). However, the applicants did not lodge their applications with the Court until mid-August 2018 (see the appended table).
10.
Accordingly, the applicants’ complaints in these two applications have been introduced out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLEs 10 and 11 OF THE CONVENTION
11.
The Court notes that some of the applicants (indicated with an asterisk in the appended table) alleged that their actions constituted solo pickets. However, the material before the Court shows that they participated in simultaneous static demonstrations across several locations in Crimea on 14
October 2017 to protest against the persecution of Crimean Tatars. The Court, being the master of characterisation of the facts, considers that this complaint falls to be examined solely under Article 11 of the Convention, Article 10 being, in the circumstances, a
lex generalis
in relation to Article
11, which is a
lex specialis
(see
Ezelin v. France
, 26 April 1991, § 35, Series A no. 202 and
Dianova and Others v. Russia
, nos.
21286/15 and 4 others, §§
61
‑
64, 10 September 2024).
12.
The Court further notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill
‑
founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor is it inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, it must be declared admissible.
13.
The general principles concerning freedom of peaceful assembly have been summarised in
Kudrevičius and Others v. Lithuania
([GC], no.
37553/05, ECHR 2015).
14.
The Court observes that each of the applicants was convicted under Article 20.2 of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation (“the CAO”) for breaching the established procedure for conducting public events. In several cases, the authorities dispersed the events and apprehended certain applicants during or shortly after the events. It is not in dispute that these measures constituted interference with applicants’ right to freedom of peaceful assembly
(see
Kasparov and Others v.
Russia
, no.
21613/07, §
84, 3 October 2013).
15
.
The Court must next determine whether the interference was “prescribed by law” within the meaning of Article 11 § 2 of the Convention. It notes that the impugned measures taken by the Russian authorities, namely those of the police and the “courts”, were based on the domestic law of the Russian Federation. However, when the respondent State extended the application of its laws to Crimea, it did so in contravention of the Convention as interpreted in the light of international humanitarian law. Consequently, Russian law cannot be regarded as “law” within the meaning of the Convention, and any administrative practice based thereon cannot be considered “lawful” or “in accordance with law” (see
Ukraine v.
Russia (re
Crimea)
, cited above, §§
942 and 946). Accordingly, the Court concludes that the impugned measures cannot be regarded as “prescribed by law” in the present case. In view of this finding, the Court does not need to examine whether the remaining requirements of Article 11 § 2, namely the pursuit of a legitimate aim and the necessity of the interference, were met.
16.
Furthermore, the Court notes that it has already established the existence of an administrative practice by the Russian authorities involving the prohibition of public gatherings and expressions of support for Ukraine or the Crimean Tatar community, as well as the intimidation and arbitrary detention of organisers of such demonstrations, in violation of Article 11 of the Convention (see
Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea)
, cited above, §§ 1109-28). The present case clearly illustrates the existence of that administrative practice in Crimea following its occupation by the Russian Federation. By participating in the demonstrations in question, the applicants expressly opposed the measures taken by the Russian authorities, either by denouncing the persecution of Crimean Tatars or by affirming that Crimea forms an integral part of Ukraine. In these circumstances, the measures taken against them formed part of a pattern aimed at intimidating the local population, particularly members of the Crimean Tatar community, and at suppressing pro-Ukrainian sentiments.
17.
There has accordingly been a violation of Article 11 of the Convention in respect of all the applicants.
other ALLEGED VIOLATIONs under well-established CASE-law
18.
Some applicants submitted additional complaints, raising issues under various provisions of the Convention, which have already been examined by the Court in
Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea)
(cited above). These complaints are not manifestly ill
‑
founded within the meaning of Article
35
§
3
(a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible.
19.
As regards the complaint under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in applications nos.
57665/16, 61583/17 and 61791/17, the Court notes that the applicants were subjected to administrative detention by the police under Russian law. In view of its findings in paragraph 15 above, the Court likewise concludes that the applicants’ detention pursuant to that law cannot be regarded as “lawful” within the meaning of Article
5 §
1 (see
Ukraine v.
Russia (re Crimea)
cited above, §§
943-46 and 998). Accordingly, there has been a violation of that provision in respect of the applicants in these three applications.
20.
As to the complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the Court observes that although some applicants did not contest the legal status of the “courts” which examined their cases in Crimea after its occupation, they raised other complaints concerning the fairness of the proceedings, in line with the Court’s well-established case-law (see
Karelin v. Russia
, no.
926/08, §§ 69-84, 20 September 2016). The Court further notes that, since the proceedings in the applicants’ cases took place after the entry into force of the “Accession Treaty”, its findings in
Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea)
under Article 6 of the Convention are applicable here. In that judgment, the Court held that the tribunals operating in Crimea under Russian legislation could not be regarded as “established by law” within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention (ibid, § 1019). This finding is sufficient for the Court to conclude that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in all applications, except application no. 47032/17 in which this complaint was not raised.
REMAINING COMPLAINTS
21.
Lastly, some applicants raised additional complaints under Articles
7, 8, 13, 14 and 18 of the Convention, as well as under Article 1 of Protocol No.
1 to the Convention. Having regard to the facts of the case and its findings above, the Court considers that it has dealt with the main legal questions raised by the applicants and that there is no need to examine the admissibility and merits of the remaining complaints (see
Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania
[GC], no. 47848/08, §
156, ECHR
2014).
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
22.
A number of the applicants claimed various sums in respect of pecuniary and non
‑
pecuniary damage, as well as various sums for their costs and expenses incurred before the domestic “courts” and the Court (see the appended table).
23.
As regards pecuniary damage, some of these applicants claimed reimbursement of the administrative fines imposed on them. The Court finds a direct causal link between the violations found and the fines paid following the applicants’ conviction for administrative offences. It therefore awards the applicants who submitted proof of payment the amounts claimed, as indicated in the appended table, and rejects the pecuniary claims in applications nos.
16784/17, 32824/17, 33119/17, 34127/17 and 38051/18, in which no such proof was provided.
24.
In respect of non-pecuniary damage, having regard to the circumstances of the case and, where relevant, to the
ne ultra petita
principle, the Court awards each applicant the amounts indicated in the appended table, plus any tax that may be chargeable.
25.
As regards costs and expenses, having regard to the documents in its possession, the Court considers it reasonable to award the applicant in application no. 3631/15, who submitted supporting documents, EUR
3,750, plus any tax that may be chargeable, to be paid directly into the bank account of his representative Mr Tarakhkalo. It dismisses the claims in applications nos. 61583/17 and 61791/17 in the absence of any supporting documents showing that the applicants either paid, or were under a legal obligation to pay, the fees charged by their representatives (see
Merabishvili v.
Georgia
[GC], no.
72508/13, § 372, 28 November 2017).
26.
As regards those applicants who did not submit any claims for just satisfaction or costs and expenses, the Court considers that there is no call to award them any sums (see
Atiman v. Turkey
, no. 62279/09, §
44, 23
September 2014).
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
Decides
to join the applications;
Holds
that the facts complained of by the applicants fall within the jurisdiction of the Russian Federation in so far as they relate to facts that took place before 16 September 2022, and that the Government’s failure to participate in the proceedings presents no obstacle to the examination of the case;
Declares
admissible the complaints under Articles 5 § 1, 6 § 1 and 11 of the Convention, as set out in the appended table, and
declares
inadmissible the complaints under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in applications nos. 39983/18 and 41321/18;
Holds
that there has been a violation of Article 11 of the Convention in all applications;
Holds
that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in applications nos. 57665/16, 61583/17 and 61791/17;
Holds
that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in all applications, except in application no. 47032/17;
Holds
that there is no need to examine the admissibility and merits of the remaining complaints;
Holds
(a)
that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement, plus any tax that may be chargeable to them;
(b)
that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
Dismisses
the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 20 January 2026, pursuant to Rule
77
§§
2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Uğur Erdal
Faris Vehabović
Acting Deputy Registrar
President
APPENDIX
List of cases:
No.
Application no.
Case name
Date of introduction
Applicant
Year of Birth
Nationality
Represented by
Name of the public event
Location
Date
Administrative offence
Final domestic decision:
“Court” Name
Date
Penalty
Other complaints under the well-established case-law
Just satisfaction claims:
non-pecuniary damage (NPD), pecuniary damage (PD), costs and expenses (CE)
Claimed
Awarded
1.
70557/14
Bekirov v. Russia
24/10/2014
Bilyal Refat Ogly BEKIROV
1992
Ukrainian
Anastasiia Romanivna MARTYNOVSKA
Mykhailo Oleksandrovych TARAKHKALO
Demonstration in support of Mustafa Dzhemilov
Aromatne village
03/05/2014
article 20.2.2
of CAO
“Court of Appeal of the Republic of Crimea”
19/06/2014
fine of RUB 10,000
Art. 6 (1) - tribunal not established by law.
EUR 30,000 (NPD)
EUR 10,000
(NPD)
2.
3631/15
Neganov v. Russia
24/12/2014
Viktor Vadimovich NEGANOV
1985
Ukrainian
Oryna Rubenivna CHYLUTYAN
Anastasiia Romanivna MARTYNOVSKA
Mykhailo Oleksandrovych
TARAKHKALO
Demonstration marking the Independence Day of Ukraine
Sevastopol
24/08/2014
article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
“Court of Appeal of the City of Sevastopol”
15/10/2014
fine of RUB 30,000
Art. 6 (1) - tribunal not established by law.
EUR 10,000
(NPD)
RUB 30,000 (PD)
EUR 3,750 (CE)
EUR 10,000 (NPD)
EUR 582 (PD)
EUR 3,750 (CE)
to be paid directly into the bank account of the applicant’s representative Mr Tarakhkalo
3.
58391/15
Ametova v. Russia
17/11/2015
Saniye Isayivna AMETOVA
1957
Ukrainian
Anastasiia Romanivna MARTYNOVSKA
Demonstration marking the
Crimean Tatar Deportation Remembrance Day
Voinka village
18/05/2015
article 20.2 § 1 of CAO
“Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea”
03/08/2015
fine of RUB 10,000
Art. 6 (1) – tribunal not established by law.
EUR 6,000 (NPD)
EUR 150 (PD)
EUR 6,000 (NPD)
No PD awarded
4.
57665/16
Kopylova v. Russia
21/09/2016
Irina Valeryevna KOPYLOVA
1977
Ukrainian
Nikolay Sergeyevich ZBOROSHENKO
Demonstration against annexation of Crimea
Simferopol
11/08/2015
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
“Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea”
30/03/2016
fine of RUB 10,000
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest and escorting to the police station on 11/08/2015
for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; she was released on the same day;
Art. 6 (1) – tribunal not established by law.
EUR 10,000 (NPD)
EUR 10,000 (NPD)
5.
16784/17
Saliyev v. Russia
23/02/2017
Seyran Alimovych SALIYEV
1985
Russian
Anastasiia Romanivna MARTYNOVSKA
Anastasiia Sergiyivna
NEKRASOVA
Mykhailo Oleksandrovych TARAKHKALO
Protest against searches of Crimean Tatar property
Bakhchysarai
12/05/2016
article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
“Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea”
23/08/2016
fine of RUB 20,000
Art. 6 (1) - tribunal not established by law.
EUR 30,000 (NPD)
EUR 270 (PD)
EUR 10,000 (NPD)
No PD awarded
6.
32824/17
Bilyalov v. Russia
28/04/2017
Emil Yunusovych BILYALOV
1986
Russian
Mykhailo Oleksandrovych TARAKHKALO
Protest against searches of Crimean Tatar property
Bakhchysarai
12/05/2016
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
“Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea”
16/11/2016
fine of RUB 10,000
Art. 6 (1) - tribunal not established by law.
EUR 30,000 (NPD)
RUB 160,000 (PD)
EUR 10,000 (NPD)
No PD awarded
7.
33119/17
Asanov v. Russia
28/04/2017
Marlen Rifatovich ASANOV
1977
Russian
Anastasiia Romanivna MARTYNOVSKA
Anastasiia Sergiyivna
NEKRASOVA
Mykhailo Oleksandrovych TARAKHKALO
Protest against searches of Crimean Tatar property
Bakhchysarai
12/05/2016
article 20.2 §
6.1 of CAO
“Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea”
08/11/2016
fine of RUB 15,000
Art. 6 (1) - tribunal not established by law.
EUR 30,000 (NPD)
RUB 20,000 (PD)
EUR 10,000 (NPD)
No PD awarded
8.
34127/17
Bilyalov v. Russia
28/04/2017
Emin Yunusovych BILYALOV
1986
Russian
Mykhailo Oleksandrovych TARAKHKALO
Protest against searches of Crimean Tatar property
Bakhchysarai
12/05/2016
article 20.2 §
6.1 of CAO
“Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea”
15/12/2016
fine of RUB 10,000
Art. 6 (1) - tribunal not established by law.
EUR 30,000 (NPD)
EUR 103,45 (PD)
EUR 10,000 (NPD)
No PD awarded
9.
47032/17
Muslyadinov and Others v. Russia
13/06/2017
Alim Izetovich MUSLYADINOV
1995
Russian
Ablyakim Dilyaverovich ABLYAKIMOV
1994
Russian
Enver Fakhriyevich CHAVUSH
1996
Russian
Seytmamut Dzhelyalovich SEYTUMEROV
1996
Russian
Aleksandr Vasilyevich POPKOV
Car procession during Crimean Tatar Deportation Remembrance Day
Sudak
18/05/2016
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
“Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea”
22/12/2016
(Mr Muslyadinov and Mr
Ablyakimov)
15/12/2016
(Mr Chavush and Mr Seytumerov)
fine of RUB 10,000 (each applicant)
NPD – at the Court’s discretion
EUR 7,500 (NPD)
to each of the applicants
10.
61583/17
Arifmemetov and Others v. Russia
03/08/2017
Osman Feratovych ARIFMEMETOV
1985
Ukrainian
Remzi Rustemovych BEKIROV
1985
Ukrainian
Valeriy Mykhaylovych GRIGOR
1971
Ukrainian
Riza Mustafayevych IZETOV
1979
Ukrainian
Alim Egamberdiyovych KARIMOV
1994
Ukrainian
Ruslan Serverovych SULEYMANOV
1983
Ukrainian
Yuliia Oleksandrivna
KOVALENKO
Anastasiia Romanivna MARTYNOVSKA
Mykhailo Oleksandrovych
TARAKHKALO
Protest against searches of Crimean Tatar property
Simferopol
21/02/2017
article 20.2.2 §
1 of CAO
“Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea”
02/03/2017
detention for 5 days
(all applicants)
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest and escorting to the police station on 21/02/2017
for the purpose of drawing up records of administrative offence and bringing to the court;
Art. 6 (1) - tribunal not established by law.
EUR
10,000
(to each of the applicants)
(NPD)
EUR 22,500
for representation of Mr Arifmemetov, Mr Bekirov, Mr Grigor, Mr Izetov, Mr Suleymanov
(EUR 4,500 to each applicant)
(CE)
EUR 10,000
(to each of the applicants)
No CE awarded
11.
61791/17 Abdurakhmanov and Others v. Russia
08/08/2017
Ablyakim Anafiyevych ABDURAKHMANOV
1977
Ukrainian
Medzhit Anafiyevych ABDOURAKHMANOV
1975
Ukrainian
Seyran Kemadinovich MURTAZA
1983
Ukrainian
Envyer Nedimovych TASINOV
1976
Ukrainian
Yuliia Oleksandrivna
KOVALENKO
Anastasiia Romanivna MARTYNOVSKA
Mykhailo Oleksandrovych
TARAKHKALO
Protest against searches of Crimean Tatar property
Simferopol
21/02/2017
article 20.2.2 §
1 of CAO
(all applicants)
“Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea”
02/03/2017
(Mr A. Abdurakhmanov and
Mr M. Abdurakhmanov)
25/04/2017
(Mr Murtaza)
06/04/2017
(Mr Tasinov)
detention for 5 days
(all applicants)
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest and escorting to the police station on 21/02/2017
for the purpose of drawing up records of administrative offence and bringing to the court;
Art. 6 (1) - tribunal not established by law.
EUR 10,000 (NPD) (to each applicant)
EUR 3,000 (CE) (Mr A. Abdurakhmanov)
EUR 4500 (CE) (Mr M. Abdurakhmanov)
EUR 10,000 (NPD) (to each of the applicants)
No CE awarded
12.
37044/18
Kutuzov v. Russia*
30/07/2018
Rimzi Shevketovich KUTUZOV
1962
Ukrainian
Emil Makhsudovich KURBEDINOV
Demonstration against persecution of Crimean Tatars
Dzhankoi
14/10/2017
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
“Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea”
15/02/2018
fine of RUB 10,000
Art. 6 (1) – tribunal not established by law.
The applicant did not submit any claim for just satisfaction as required by Rule 60 of the Rules of Court.
No compensation awarded
13.
37051/18
Rustemov v. Russia*
30/07/2018
Ruslan Ismailovich RUSTEMOV
1982
Ukrainian
Emil Makhsudovich KURBEDINOV
Demonstration against persecution of Crimean Tatars
Feodosiia
14/10/2017
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
“Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea”
13/03/2018
fine of RUB 10,000
Art. 6 (1) – tribunal not established by law.
The applicant did not submit any claim for just satisfaction as required by Rule 60 of the Rules of Court.
No compensation awarded
14.
37056/18
Dani v. Russia*
30/07/2018
Eral Asanovich DANI
1978
Ukrainian
Emil Makhsudovich KURBEDINOV
Demonstration against persecution of Crimean Tatars
Blyzhnie village
14/10/2017
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
“Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea”
13/03/2018
fine of RUB 10,000
Art. 6 (1) – tribunal not established by law.
The applicant did not submit any claim for just satisfaction as required by Rule 60 of the Rules of Court.
No compensation awarded
15.
37060/18
Murakhas v. Russia*
30/07/2018
Mustafa Rustemovich MURAKHAS
1989
Ukrainian
Emil Makhsudovich KURBEDINOV
Demonstration against persecution of Crimean Tatars
Ostrovske village
14/10/2017
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
“Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea”
07/02/2018
fine of RUB 10,000
Art. 6 (1) – tribunal not established by law.
The applicant did not submit any claim for just satisfaction as required by Rule 60 of the Rules of Court.
No compensation awarded
16.
37066/18
Zekeryayev v. Russia*
30/07/2018
Ayder Abdumadzhitovich ZEKERYAYEV
1970
Ukrainian
Emil Makhsudovich KURBEDINOV
Demonstration against persecution of Crimean Tatars
Blyzhnogorodske village
14/10/2017
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
“Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea”
31/01/2018
fine of RUB 15,000
Art. 6 (1) – tribunal not established by law.
The applicant did not submit any claim for just satisfaction as required by Rule 60 of the Rules of Court.
No compensation awarded
17.
37101/18
Zekeryayev v. Russia*
30/07/2018
Leman Abdumadzhitovich ZEKERYAYEV
1973
Ukrainian
Emil Makhsudovich KURBEDINOV
Demonstration against persecution of Crimean Tatars
Roshchyno village
14/10/2017
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
“Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea”
07/02/2018
fine of RUB 15,000
Art. 6 (1) – tribunal not established by law.
The applicant did not submit any claim for just satisfaction as required by Rule 60 of the Rules of Court.
No compensation awarded
18.
37105/18
Ziyadinov v. Russia*
30/07/2018
Avlyamit Suleymanovich ZIYADINOV
1990
Ukrainian
Emil Makhsudovich KURBEDINOV
Demonstration against persecution of Crimean Tatars
Pobiedne village
14/10/2017
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
“Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea”
07/02/2018
fine of RUB 15,000
Art. 6 (1) – tribunal not established by law.
The applicant did not submit any claim for just satisfaction as required by Rule 60 of the Rules of Court.
No compensation awarded
19.
37109/18
Asanov v. Russia*
30/07/2018
Riza Kadirovich ASANOV
1962
Ukrainian
Emil Makhsudovich KURBEDINOV
Demonstration against persecution of Crimean Tatars
Novostepove village
14/10/2017
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
“Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea”
15/02/2018
fine of RUB 15,000
Art. 6 (1) - tribunal not established by law.
The applicant did not submit any claim for just satisfaction as required by Rule 60 of the Rules of Court.
No compensation awarded
20.
37112/18
Suleymanov v. Russia*
30/07/2018
Ayder Osmanovich SULEYMANOV
1989
Ukrainian
Emil Makhsudovich KURBEDINOV
Demonstration against persecution of Crimean Tatars
Pobiedne village
14/10/2017
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
“Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea”
13/02/2018
fine of RUB 10,000
Art. 6 (1) – tribunal not established by law.
The applicant did not submit any claim for just satisfaction as required by Rule 60 of the Rules of Court.
No compensation awarded
21.
37117/18
Suleymanov v. Russia*
30/07/2018
Ruslan Serverovych SULEYMANOV
1983
Ukrainian
Emil Makhsudovich KURBEDINOV
Demonstration against persecution of Crimean Tatars
Simferopol
14/10/2017
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
“Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea”
14/02/2018
fine of RUB 10,000
Art. 6 (1) – tribunal not established by law.
The applicant did not submit any claim for just satisfaction as required by Rule 60 of the Rules of Court.
No compensation awarded
22.
37215/18
Suleymanov v. Russia*
30/07/2018
Ali Dlyaverovich SULEYMANOV
1985
Ukrainian
Emil Makhsudovich KURBEDINOV
Demonstration against persecution of Crimean Tatars
Chystenke village
14/10/2017
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
“Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea”
15/02/2018
fine of RUB 10,000
Art. 6 (1) – tribunal not established by law.
The applicant did not submit any claim for just satisfaction as required by Rule 60 of the Rules of Court.
No compensation awarded
23.
37223/18
Kantemirov v. Russia*
30/07/2018
Eldar Shukurievich KANTEMIROV
1980
Ukrainian
Emil Makhsudovich KURBEDINOV
Demonstration against persecution of Crimean Tatars
Zarichne village
14/10/2017
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
“Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea”
12/02/2018
fine of RUB 10,000
Art. 6 (1) – tribunal not established by law.
The applicant did not submit any claim for just satisfaction as required by Rule 60 of the Rules of Court.
No compensation awarded
24.
37239/18
Kerimov v. Russia*
30/07/2018
Lenur Lenterovich KERIMOV
1988
Ukrainian
Emil Makhsudovich KURBEDINOV
Demonstration against persecution of Crimean Tatars
Prydorozhnie village
14/10/2017
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
“Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea”
07/02/2018
fine of RUB 15,000
Art. 6 (1) – tribunal not established by law.
The applicant did not submit any claim for just satisfaction as required by Rule 60 of the Rules of Court.
No compensation awarded
25.
37245/18
Ibragimov v. Russia*
30/07/2018
Ayder Muzafarovich IBRAGIMOV
1989
Ukrainian
Emil Makhsudovich KURBEDINOV
Demonstration against persecution of Crimean Tatars
Krasnohvardiiske
14/10/2017
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
“Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea”
15/02/2018
fine of RUB 10,000
Art. 6 (1) – tribunal not established by law.
The applicant did not submit any claim for just satisfaction as required by Rule 60 of the Rules of Court.
No compensation awarded
26.
37318/18
Abdurakhmanov v. Russia*
30/07/2018
Medzhit Anafiyevich ABDURAKHMANOV
1975
Ukrainian
Emil Makhsudovich KURBEDINOV
Demonstration against persecution of Crimean Tatars
Simferopol
14/10/2017
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
“Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea”
14/02/2018
fine of RUB 10,000
Art. 6 (1) – tribunal not established by law.
The applicant did not submit any claim for just satisfaction as required by Rule 60 of the Rules of Court.
No compensation awarded
27.
37326/18
Abibullayev v. Russia*
30/07/2018
Eridzhep Narimanovich ABIBULLAYEV
1998
Ukrainian
Emil Makhsudovich KURBEDINOV
Demonstration against persecution of Crimean Tatars
Stovpove village
14/10/2017
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
“Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea”
07/02/2018
fine of RUB 10,000
Art. 6 (1) – tribunal not established by law.
The applicant did not submit any claim for just satisfaction as required by Rule 60 of the Rules of Court.
No compensation awarded
28.
37330/18
Aliyev v. Russia*
30/07/2018
Akhtem Seryanovich ALIYEV
1973
Ukrainian
Emil Makhsudovich KURBEDINOV
Demonstration against persecution of Crimean Tatars
Dobre village
14/10/2017
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
“Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea”
05/02/2018
fine of RUB 10,000
Art. 6 (1) – tribunal not established by law.
The applicant did not submit any claim for just satisfaction as required by Rule 60 of the Rules of Court.
No compensation awarded
29.
37334/18
Aliyev v. Russia*
30/07/2018
Nadir Akramzhonovich ALIYEV
1998
Ukrainian
Emil Makhsudovich KURBEDINOV
Demonstration against persecution of Crimean Tatars
Pobiedne village
14/10/2017
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
“Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea”
08/02/2018
fine of RUB 10,000
Art. 6 (1) – tribunal not established by law.
The applicant did not submit any claim for just satisfaction as required by Rule 60 of the Rules of Court.
No compensation awarded
30.
37339/18
Emiruseinov v. Russia*
30/07/2018
Reshat Asanovich EMIRUSEINOV
1950
Ukrainian
Emil Makhsudovich KURBEDINOV
Demonstration against persecution of Crimean Tatars
Oktiabrske village
14/10/2017
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
“Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea”
15/02/2018
fine of RUB 10,000
Art. 6 (1) – tribunal not established by law.
The applicant did not submit any claim for just satisfaction as required by Rule 60 of the Rules of Court.
No compensation awarded
31.
37340/18
Ametov v. Russia*
30/07/2018
Nariman Delyaverovich AMETOV
1970
Ukrainian
Emil Makhsudovich KURBEDINOV
Demonstration against persecution of Crimean Tatars
Feodosiia
14/10/2017
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
“Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea”
15/02/2018
fine of RUB 10,000
Art. 6 (1) – tribunal not established by law.
The applicant did not submit any claim for just satisfaction as required by Rule 60 of the Rules of Court.
No compensation awarded
32.
37343/18
Asanov v. Russia*
30/07/2018
Bakhtiyer Rizayevich ASANOV
1960
Ukrainian
Emil Makhsudovich KURBEDINOV
Demonstration against persecution of Crimean Tatars
Pionerske village
14/10/2017
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
“Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea”
07/02/2018
fine of RUB 10,000
Art. 6 (1) – tribunal not established by law.
The applicant did not submit any claim for just satisfaction as required by Rule 60 of the Rules of Court.
No compensation awarded
33.
37350/18
Urimov v. Russia*
30/07/2018
Aziz Salidzhanovich URIMOV
1984
Ukrainian
Emil Makhsudovich KURBEDINOV
Demonstration against persecution of Crimean Tatars
Feodosiia
14/10/2017
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
“Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea”
13/03/2018
fine of RUB 10,000
Art. 6 (1) – tribunal not established by law.
The applicant did not submit any claim for just satisfaction as required by Rule 60 of the Rules of Court.
No compensation awarded
34.
37354/18
Bekirov v. Russia*
30/07/2018
Edem Asanovich BEKIROV
1976
Ukrainian
Emil Makhsudovich KURBEDINOV
Demonstration against persecution of Crimean Tatars
Dzhankoi
14/10/2017
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
“Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea”
07/02/2018
fine of RUB 10,000
Art. 6 (1) – tribunal not established by law.
The applicant did not submit any claim for just satisfaction as required by Rule 60 of the Rules of Court.
No compensation awarded
35.
38051/18
Bovbekiv and Others v. Russia*
30/06/2018
Leman Mambetovych BOVBEKIV
1991
Ukrainian
Eldar Enverovych EMIR-USEIN
1989
Ukrainian
Tair Suleymanovych IBRAGIMOV
1949
Ukrainian
Envyer Ryeshadovych KHALILOV
1959
Ukrainian
Zekiya Vaitovych KULAMETOV
1959
Ukrainian
Rustam KURKCHY
1960
Ukrainian
Sadri Mammetovych MURATOV
1979
Ukrainian
Seitbilol Seitmamutovych SEITMEMETOV
1963
Ukrainian
Server Seydaliyevych SEYTIBRAMOV
1960
Ukrainian
Ruslan Rystamovych UMEROV
1978
Ukrainian
Simar Narimanovych YAKUBOV
1986
Ukrainian
Dzhamadin Myenellyayevych ZIYADINOV
1957
Ukrainian
Ebubekir Aliyevych ZIYADINOV
1987
Ukrainian
Anna Grygorivna
KOZMENKO
Anastasiia Romanivna MARTYNOVSKA
Mykhailo Oleksandrovych TARAKHKALO
Demonstrations against persecution of Crimean Tatars
Various locations in Crimea
14/10/2017
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
“Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea”
06/02/2018
(Mr Bovbekiv)
14/02/2018
(Mr Emir-Usein)
07/02/2018 (Mr Ibragimov)
15/02/2018
(Mr Khalilov)
13/02/2018
(Mr Kulametov)
31/01/2018
(Mr Kurkchy)
14/02/2018
(Mr Muratov)
07/02/2018
(Mr Seitmemetov)
21/02/2018
(Mr Seytibramov)
14/02/2018
(Mr Umerov)
21/02/2018
(Mr Yakubov)
15/02/2018
(Mr D.M. Ziyadinov)
15/02/2018
(Mr E.A. Ziyadinov)
fine of RUB 10,000
(each applicant)
Art. 6 (1) – tribunal not established by law.
EUR 10,000
each applicant (NPD)
EUR 150
each applicant (PD)
EUR 10,000
each applicant (NPD)
No PD awarded
36.
39983/18
Muratov v. Russia*
15/08/2018
Ali Mametovich MURATOV
1981
Russian
Yevgeniya Oleksandrivna ZAKREVSKA
Demonstration against persecution of Crimean Tatars
Simferopol
14/10/2017
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
“Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea”
15/02/2018
fine of RUB 10,000
Art. 6 (1) – tribunal not established by law.
The applicant did not submit any claim for just satisfaction as required by Rule 60 of the Rules of Court.
No compensation awarded
37.
40705/18
Ablyatipov v. Russia*
05/08/2018
Server Umerovich ABLYATIPOV
1964
Russian
Alina Vladimirovna YESIPOVA
Demonstration against persecution of Crimean Tatars
Krasnohvardiiske
14/10/2017
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
“Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea”
07/02/2018
fine of RUB 10,000
Art. 6 (1) – tribunal not established by law.
NPD – at the Court’s discretion
RUB 10,000 (PD)
EUR 10,000 (NPD)
EUR 140 (PD)
38.
40846/18
Ablyatipov v. Russia*
05/08/2018
Enver Umerovich ABLYATIPOV
1963
Russian
Alina Vladimirovna YESIPOVA
Demonstration against persecution of Crimean Tatars
Krasnohvardiiske
14/10/2017
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
“Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea”
07/02/2018
fine of RUB 10,000
Art. 6 (1) – tribunal not established by law.
NPD – at the Court’s discretion
RUB 10,000 (PD)
EUR 10,000 (NPD)
EUR 140 (PD)
39.
41066/18
Ablyatipov v. Russia*
05/08/2018
Umer Mukhamedovich ABLYATIPOV
1996
Russian
Alina Vladimirovna YESIPOVA
Demonstration against persecution of Crimean Tatars
Krasnohvardiiske
14/10/2017
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
“Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea”
07/02/2018
fine of RUB 10,000
Art. 6 (1) – tribunal not established by law.
NPD – at the Court’s discretion
RUB 10,000 (PD)
EUR 10,000 (NPD)
EUR 140 (PD)
40.
41152/18
Ablyatipov v. Russia*
12/08/2018
Abdulkhay Umerovich ABLYATIPOV
1966
Russian
Alina Vladimirovna YESIPOVA
Demonstration against persecution of Crimean Tatars
Krasnohvardiiske
14/10/2017
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
“Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea”
14/02/2018
fine of RUB 10,000
Art. 6 (1) – tribunal not established by law.
NPD – at the Court’s discretion
RUB 10,000 (PD)
EUR 10,000 (NPD)
EUR 140 (PD)
41.
41261/18
Ablyatipov v. Russia*
12/08/2018
Mimet Umerovich ABLYATIPOV
1955
Russian
Alina Vladimirovna YESIPOVA
Demonstration against persecution of Crimean Tatars
Krasnohvardiiske
14/10/2017
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
“Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea”
14/02/2018
fine of RUB 10,000
Art. 6 (1) – tribunal not established by law.
NPD – at the Court’s discretion
RUB 10,000 (PD)
EUR 10,000 (NPD)
EUR 140 (PD)
42.
41321/18
Azizov v. Russia*
12/08/2018
Enver Iskanderovich AZIZOV
1976
Russian
Yevgeniya Oleksandrivna ZAKREVSKA
Demonstration against persecution of Crimean Tatars
Simferopol
14/10/2017
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
“Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea”
13/02/2018
fine of RUB 10,000
Art. 6 (1) – tribunal not established by law.
The applicant did not submit any claim for just satisfaction as required by Rule 60 of the Rules of Court.
No compensation awarded
43.
41994/18
Ablayev v. Russia*
23/07/2018
Delyaver Rayedovich ABLAYEV
1968
Russian
Aleksandr Dmitriyevich PEREDRUK
Demonstration against persecution of Crimean Tatars
Novostepove village
14/10/2017
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
“Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea”
13/02/2018
fine of RUB 10,000
Art. 6 (1) – tribunal not established by law.
NPD – at the Court’s discretion
RUB 10,000 (PD)
EUR 10,000 (NPD)
EUR 140 (PD)
[1]
The names of courts established under Russian law are indicated in inverted commas (see
Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea)
[GC], nos. 20958/14 and 38334/18, § 41, 25 June 2024).