Přehled
Rozsudek
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 | 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 | Anastasiia Romanivna MARTYNOVSKA Mykhailo Oleksandrovych TARAKHKALO | Demonstration in support of Mustafa Dzhemilov Aromatne village 03/05/2014 | article 20.2.2 § 1 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 Simar Narimanovych YAKUBOV | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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).