73977/14

Plný text

FOURTH SECTION CASE OF AMETOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Application no. 73977/14) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 7 July 2026 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Ametov and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Lorraine Schembri Orland, President, Faris Vehabović, Anne Louise Bormann, judges, and Uğur Erdal, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no. 73977/14) 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”) on 11 November 2014 by the 32 applicants listed in the appended table (“the applicants”), who were represented by Mr N. Zboroshenko, a lawyer admitted to practise in Moscow; the decision to give notice of the application to the Russian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Mr M. Vinogradov; the observations submitted by the applicants; the third-party comments submitted by the Ukrainian Government, represented by their Agent, most recently Ms M. Sokorenko; Having deliberated in private on 16 June 2026, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE 1.  The present application arises 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). It concerns 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, and the majority of them are of Crimean Tatar origin. On 3 May 2014 they took part in demonstrations held in Crimea in support of Mr Mustafa Dzhemilev, one of the key leaders of the Crimean Tatar people and a former chairman of the Mejlis, the representative body of the Crimean Tatar people.

3. On 2 May 2014 Mr Dzhemilev, a former political prisoner who has been serving as a member of the Ukrainian Parliament since 1998, was banned from entering Crimea. On 3 May 2014 several thousand Crimean Tatars gathered at the Armyansk checkpoint on the administrative boundary line between the Kherson Region and Crimea in order to meet him. Public gatherings were also held in various locations throughout Crimea on the same day. Subsequently, around 200 persons were fined on administrative charges of participating in an “unauthorised demonstration” and “disobeying a lawful order of the police”. Each of the 32 applicants participated in demonstrations held at various locations on 3 May 2014. They were subsequently charged under Article 20.2.2 § 1 of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation for taking part in a mass assembly which caused disruption to public order, security, or infrastructure. Following the examination of their cases by the Russian “courts”[1] operating in Crimea, the applicants were found guilty of administrative offences and fined between 10,000 and 40,000 Russian roubles (RUB). The applicants lodged appeals, which were dismissed on various dates by the “Appeal Court of the Republic of Crimea”. The applicants’ details and the factual information relevant to each application are set out in the appended table.

4. The applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the administrative proceedings brought against them in connection with their participation in the demonstrations had not met the requirements of a fair hearing. In particular, they alleged a lack of equality of arms and challenged the lawfulness, independence, and impartiality of the “tribunals”. They further submitted that the proceedings had been conducted in the absence of a public prosecutor. Four of the applicants, Mr Amirshoyev, Mr Asanov, Ms Seytkhalilova and Mr Sidikov, further complained that their convictions for participating in peaceful demonstrations had breached their rights under Article 11 of the Convention. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT PRELIMINARY ISSUES 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 Party 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 reiterates 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 present application falls 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 application (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). Substantially the same matter (Article 35 § 2 (b) of the Convention)

9. The Court observes that the seventh applicant, Mr Bilyal Refat Ogly Bekirov, previously lodged another application (no. 70557/14), in which he complained under Article 6 § 1 and Article 11 of the Convention in relation to his participation in the demonstration of 3 May 2014 in support of Mr Mustafa Dzhemilov (see Bekirov and Others v. Russia [Committee], no. 70557/14 and 42 others, 20 January 2026). In the present case, Mr Bekirov again raised a complaint under Article 6 § 1 concerning the lawfulness of the “tribunals” operating in Crimea which examined his case. The Court considers that this complaint relates to the same facts and the same grievances as those raised in application no. 70557/14. It follows that this part of the application is substantially the same as a matter already examined by the Court within the meaning of Article 35 § 2 (b) of the Convention (see Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VgT) v. Switzerland (no. 2) [GC], no. 32772/02, § 63, ECHR 2009). It must therefore be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 10.  The Court observes that it has previously held that proceedings under Article 20.2 of the Code of Administrative Offences concerning the organisation of or participation in public events, although classified as “administrative” in Russian law, fall within the criminal limb of Article 6 of the Convention, having regard to the nature of the offence and the punitive and deterrent character of the penalties imposed (see, among many authorities, Mikhaylova v. Russia, no. 46998/08, §§ 51-69, 19 November 2015, and Kasparov and Others v. Russia, no. 21613/07, § 45, 3 October 2013).

11. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

12. Turning to the thrust of the applicants’ complaint, the Court reiterates its findings in Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea) (cited above, §§ 942 and 946), in which it held that the extension of Russian law to Crimea was contrary to the Convention, as interpreted in the light of international humanitarian law, and could not be regarded as “law” within the meaning of the Convention. It further held that, as a consequence, the judicial system operating in Crimea after March 2014 could not be regarded as “established by law” within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (ibid., §§ 1013, 1019 and 1022).

13. In the present case, the applicants were prosecuted under Article 20.2 of the Code of Administrative Offences in connection with their participation in the demonstrations on 3 May 2014. Their cases were examined in administrative proceedings by Russian “courts” operating in Crimea, which found them guilty as charged and imposed fines on them (see the appended table). The proceedings took place after the enforcement of the so-called “Accession Treaty” in March 2014 and were conducted entirely on the basis of Russian legislation.

14. In view of the above findings and having regard to the fact that the administrative proceedings were conducted entirely on the basis of Russian law, the Court concludes that the applicants’ cases were determined by tribunals which were not “established by law” within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

15. There has accordingly been a violation of that provision in respect of all applicants. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 11 OF THE CONVENTION 16.  Mr Amirshoyev, Mr Asanov, Ms Seytkhalilova and Mr Sidikov also complained under Article 11 of the Convention that their convictions for staging demonstrations had breached their right to freedom of assembly.

17. 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 grounds. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible.

18. It is not in dispute that these four applicants’ convictions under Article 20.2.2 of the Code of Administrative Offences constituted an interference with their right to freedom of peaceful assembly (see Kasparov and Others, cited above, § 84). The Court must next determine whether that interference was “prescribed by law” within the meaning of Article 11 § 2 of the Convention.

19. The Court observes that the impugned measures were based on Russian law, the extension of which to Crimea was contrary to the Convention as interpreted in the light of international humanitarian law (see Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea), cited above, §§ 942 and 946). It follows that the interference was not “prescribed by law”. Accordingly, the Court does not consider it necessary to examine the remaining requirements of Article 11 § 2.

20. The Court further reiterates its finding of an administrative practice consisting in the prohibition of public gatherings expressing support for Ukraine or the Crimean Tatar people, accompanied by intimidation and the arbitrary detention of organisers (ibid., §§ 1109-28). The present case forms part of that pattern, reflecting a policy of suppressing pro‑Ukrainian sentiment and intimidating the local population, in particular the Crimean Tatar people.

21. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 11 of the Convention in respect of Mr Amirshoyev, Mr Asanov, Ms Seytkhalilova and Mr Sidikov. IV. remaining complaints 22.  The applicants further raised an additional complaint relating to the absence of a prosecutor in a court hearing under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

23. The Court finds that this complaint has in effect been examined under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention above, and that it is not necessary to examine separately the consequences of that alleged defect for the proper administration of justice and the fair-trial guarantees in the applicants’ case (ibid., §§ 1019-20, and, mutatis mutandis, 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 24.  Each of the applicants claimed 10,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non‑pecuniary damage.

25. The Government did not comment.

26. Having regard to the nature of the violations found and making its assessment on an equitable basis, the Court awards each applicant the amounts indicated in the appended table in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, 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 in Crimea 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 Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in respect of all applicants except Mr Bilyal Refat Ogly Bekirov, and under Article 11 of the Convention in respect of Mr Amirshoyev, Mr Asanov, Ms Seytkhalilova and Mr Sidikov, and the remainder of the application inadmissible; Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in respect of all applicants; Holds that there has been a violation of Article 11 of the Convention in respect of Mr Amirshoyev, Mr Asanov, Ms Seytkhalilova and Mr Sidikov; Holds that there is no need to examine the admissibility and merits of the remaining complaints; Holds that the respondent State is to pay the applicants in respect of non‑pecuniary damage, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, plus any tax that may be chargeable; 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. Done in English, and notified in writing on 7 July 2026, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Uğur Erdal Lorraine Schembri Orland Acting Deputy Registrar President APPENDIX List of applicants: No. Applicant’s name Year of birth Nationality Place of residence Court decision, date, penalty Place of demonstrations Non-pecuniary damage award 1. Veli Serverovich AMETOV 1986 Ukrainian Samokhvalovo “Appeal Court of the Republic of Crimea” 24/06/2014 RUB 10,000 Near the village of Novopavlivka, Bakhchysaraiskyi district EUR 6,000 2. Lyufti Ablyazovich ALIYEV 1973 Ukrainian Novostepne “Appeal Court of the Republic of Crimea” 10/07/2014 RUB 10,000 Near the village of Novostepne, Dzhankoiskyi district EUR 6,000 3. Gulsum Smailovna ALIYEVA 1976 Ukrainian Novostepne “Appeal Court of the Republic of Crimea” 08/07/2014 RUB 30,000 Near the village of Novostepne, Dzhankoiskyi district EUR 6,000 4. Enver Bakhredinovich AMIRSHOYEV 1965 Ukrainian Oktiabrske (since 2016 - Biiuk-Onlar) “Appeal Court of the Republic of Crimea” 05/06/2014 RUB 10,000 Near the village of Oktiabrske, Krasnohvardiiskyi district (since 2016 the village of Biiuk-Onlar, Kurmanskyi district) EUR 10,000 5. Lenur Bakhshishevich ASANOV 1953 Ukrainian Oktiabrske (since 2016 - Biiuk-Onlar) “Appeal Court of the Republic of Crimea” 03/06/2014 RUB 30,000 Near the village of Oktiabrske, Krasnohvardiiskyi district (since 2016 the village of Biiuk-Onlar, Kurmanskyi district) EUR 10,000 6. Nariman Rustamovich AZMIYEV 1986 Ukrainian Novooleksiivka “Appeal Court of the Republic of Crimea” 29/05/2014 RUB 40,000 Kharkiv-Simferopol-Alushta-Yalta motorway EUR 6,000 7. Bilyal Refat Ogly BEKIROV (inadmissible) 1992 Ukrainian Novopavlivka “Appeal Court of the Republic of Crimea” 19/06/2014 RUB 10,000 Near the village of Novopavlivka, Bakhchysaraiskiy district 0 8. Lenur Ridvanovich BEKIROV 1979 Ukrainian Samokhvalove “Appeal Court of the Republic of Crimea” 17/06/2014 RUB 10,000 Near the village of Novopavlivka, Bakhchysaraiskyi district EUR 6,000 9. Server Remziyevich BEKIROV 1986 Ukrainian Oktiabrske (since 2016 - Biiuk-Onlar) “Appeal Court of the Republic of Crimea” 05/06/2014 RUB 30,000 Near the village of Amurske, Krasnohvardiiskyi district (since 2016 - Kurmanskyi district) EUR 6,000 10. Mansur BILYALOV 1939 Ukrainian Poshtove “Appeal Court of the Republic of Crimea” 24/06/2014 RUB 10,000 Near the village of Novopavlivka, Bakhchysaraiskyi district EUR 6,000 11. Elzara Gafarovna DZHEMADINOVA 1982 Ukrainian Mendelieieve “Appeal Court of the Republic of Crimea” 05/06/2014 RUB 10,000 Near the village of Oktiabrske, Krasnohvardiiskyi district (since 2016 the village of Biiuk-Onlar, Kurmanskyi district) EUR 6,000 12. Fevzi Memetovich DZHIRIKOV 1951 Ukrainian Poshtove “Appeal Court of the Republic of Crimea” 30/06/2014 RUB 10,000 Near the village of Hrushivka, Sudakskyi district EUR 6,000 13. Emir Ablayevich EDEMOV 1971 Ukrainian Sevastianivka “Appeal Court of the Republic of Crimea” 17/06/2014 RUB 11,000 Near the village of Novopavlivka, Bakhchysaraiskyi district EUR 6,000 14. Refat Midatovich ISMAILOV 1959 Ukrainian Topoli “Appeal Court of the Republic of Crimea” 17/06/2014 RUB 10,000 Near the village of Novopavlivka, Bakhchysaraiskyi district EUR 6,000 15. Khalil Mustafayevich KHALILOV 1973 Ukrainian Oktiabrske (since 2016 - Biiuk-Onlar) “Appeal Court of the Republic of Crimea” 05/06/2014 RUB 10,000 Near the village of Oktiabrske, Krasnohvardiiskyi district (since 2016 the village of Biiuk-Onlar, Kurmanskyi district) EUR 6,000 16. Mustafa KHALILOV 1948 Ukrainian Oktiabrske (since 2016 - Biiuk-Onlar) “Appeal Court of the Republic of Crimea” 03/06/2014 RUB 10,000 Kharkiv-Simferopol-Alushta-Yalta motorway EUR 6,000 17. Serven Bakhtiyerovich KHALILOV 1982 Ukrainian Zavitne “Appeal Court of the Republic of Crimea” 24/06/2014 RUB 10,000 Near the village of Novopavlivka, Bakhchysaraiskyi district EUR 6,000 18. Anife Saitovna KROSH 1954 Ukrainian Novostepne “Appeal Court of the Republic of Crimea” 08/07/2014 RUB 10,000 Near the village of Novostepne, Dzhankoiskyi district EUR 6,000 19. Amet Enverovich KURTNAZAROV 1992 Ukrainian Sevastianivka “Appeal Court of the Republic of Crimea” 17/06/2014 RUB 10,000 Near the village of Novopavlivka, Bakhchysaraiskyi district EUR 6,000 20. Eyub Aliyevich MAMUTOV 1968 Ukrainian Novostepne “Appeal Court of the Republic of Crimea” 26/06/2014 RUB 10,000 Near the village of Novostepne, Dzhankoiskyi district EUR 6,000 21. Levat Midatovich MEMETOV 1987 Ukrainian Zavitne “Appeal Court of the Republic of Crimea” 05/06/2014 RUB 10,000 Near the village of Novopavlivka, Bakhchysaraiskyi district EUR 6,000 22. Midat MEMETOV 1956 Ukrainian Zavitne “Appeal Court of the Republic of Crimea” 19/06/2014 RUB 10,000 Near the village of Novopavlivka, Bakhchysaraiskyi district EUR 6,000 23. Edem Mamutovich MUSTAFAYEV 1952 Ukrainian Oktiabrske (since 2016 - Biiuk-Onlar) “Appeal Court of the Republic of Crimea” 10/06/2014 RUB 30,000 Near the village of Oktiabrske, Krasnohvardiiskyi district (since 2016 the village of Biiuk-Onlar, Kurmanskyi district) EUR 6,000 24. Emil Edemovich MUSTAFAYEV 1977 Ukrainian Oktiabrske (since 2016 - Biiuk-Onlar) “Appeal Court of the Republic of Crimea” 03/06/2014 RUB 10,000 Near the village of Oktiabrske, Krasnohvardiiskyi district (since 2016 the village of Biiuk-Onlar, Kurmanskyi district) EUR 6,000 25. Ruslan Ilyasovich NEMETULLAYEV 1967 Ukrainian Amurske “Appeal Court of the Republic of Crimea” 05/06/2014 RUB 10,000 Near the village of Oktiabrske, Krasnohvardiiskyi district (since 2016 the village of Biiuk-Onlar, Kurmanskyi district) EUR 6,000 26. Anfe Server-Arifovna OSMANOVA 1984 Ukrainian Oktiabrske (since 2016 - Biiuk-Onlar) “Appeal Court of the Republic of Crimea” 05/06/2014 RUB 10,000 Near the village of Oktiabrske, Krasnohvardiiskyi district (since 2016 the village of Biiuk-Onlar, Kurmanskyi district) EUR 6,000 27. Zarema Arkadyevna SEYTKHALILOVA 1962 Ukrainian Bakhchysarai “Appeal Court of the Republic of Crimea” 19/06/2014 RUB 10,000 Simferopol-Sevastopol motorway, near an ATAN petrol station in Bakhchysaraiskyi district EUR 10,000 28. Bekir Rasimovich SEYTVAPOV 1976 Ukrainian Oktiabrske (since 2016 - Biiuk-Onlar) “Appeal Court of the Republic of Crimea” 05/06/2014 RUB 10,000 Near the village of Oktiabrske, Krasnohvardiiskyi district (since 2016 the village of Biiuk-Onlar, Kurmanskyi district) EUR 6,000 29. Rustem Rizayevich SHEYKHALIYEV 1971 Ukrainian Amurske “Appeal Court of the Republic of Crimea” 10/06/2014 RUB 15,000 Near the village of Oktiabrske, Krasnohvardiiskyi district (since 2016 the village of Biiuk-Onlar, Kurmanskyi district) EUR 6,000 30. Seran Serverovich SIDIKOV 1980 Ukrainian Topoli “Appeal Court of the Republic of Crimea” 10/06/2014 RUB 10,000 Near the village of Novopavlivka, Bakhchysaraiskyi district EUR 10,000 31. Nuri Assanovich TEMIRKHALIYEV 1952 Ukrainian Zavitne “Appeal Court of the Republic of Crimea” 10/06/2014 RUB 10,000 Near the village of Novopavlivka, Bakhchysaraiskyi district EUR 6,000 32. Ebazer Mustafayevich VELIYEV 1984 Ukrainian Zavitne “Appeal Court of the Republic of Crimea” 10/06/2014 RUB 10,000 Near the village of Novopavlivka, Bakhchysaraiskyi district EUR 6,000

1. The names of courts established in Crimea 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).