Background
S.B., an Uzbek national, had lived in Russia since 2008 and moved to Crimea with her husband and two children in 2015. After her husband was killed in an FSB operation in Crimea on 11 May 2021, a Russian-established “Sovetskiy District Court of Crimea” found her in breach of migration rules, ordered her removal to Uzbekistan, and detained her pending removal. The court noted that her two minor children had been living with her and directed authorities to determine where they should live following her detention.
The European Court of Human Rights indicated under Rule 39 that S.B. should not be removed while the Strasbourg proceedings continued. The removal order was upheld, but the interim measure suspended its enforcement. S.B. remained detained until 2 April 2023, when she was removed to Uzbekistan with her agreement; her children joined her there in August 2023. She withdrew her Article 3 complaint concerning the risk of ill-treatment in Uzbekistan.
The Court’s Holding
The Court held that it had jurisdiction over the measures adopted by Russian authorities in Crimea before Russia ceased to be a Convention party on 16 September 2022. It also had jurisdiction over S.B.’s detention in its entirety because it was the continuing effect of a detention order made before that date. Russia’s non-participation in the proceedings did not prevent the Court from deciding the case.
There had been violations of Article 5 § 1 and Article 8. Applying its Grand Chamber judgment in Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea), the Court held that Russian legislation extended to Crimea could not qualify as “law” for Convention purposes. The Russian-established Crimean courts’ decisions therefore could not lawfully ground S.B.’s detention or the interference with her family life. In light of the Article 5 § 1 finding, the Court did not separately examine the Article 5 § 4 complaint. It struck out the withdrawn Article 3 complaint.
Key Takeaways
- Detention ordered under Russian legislation imposed in occupied Crimea lacked a lawful basis under Article 5 § 1.
- S.B.’s removal order and detention disrupted her relationship with her minor children and were not “in accordance with the law” under Article 8.
- The Court awarded EUR 10,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,650 in costs and expenses.
Why It Matters
The judgment applies the Court’s Crimea jurisprudence to an individual immigration-detention and family-separation case. It confirms that Russian-established institutions in Crimea could not rely on Russian legislation imposed there to satisfy the Convention’s legality requirement.
It also clarifies the Court’s continuing temporal jurisdiction over detention that began under a pre-16 September 2022 order and continued after Russia left the Convention system.