Background
The Court jointly considered 20 applications arising from civil and criminal proceedings conducted by courts operating in Crimea after the extension of Russian legislation to the peninsula in March 2014. The proceedings concerned matters including property, employment, debts, company and enforcement disputes, as well as criminal convictions and penalties.
The applicants argued that those courts could not qualify as tribunals “established by law” under Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The relevant events occurred before 16 September 2022, when Russia ceased to be a party to the Convention. Relying on its earlier Crimea judgment, the Court held that Russia had exercised extraterritorial jurisdiction through effective control of Crimea from 27 February 2014 and that it therefore had jurisdiction to examine the applications.
The Court’s Holding
The Court unanimously found a violation of Article 6 § 1. It reiterated its prior holding that extending Russian law to Crimea was contrary to the Convention, interpreted in light of international humanitarian law, and that Russian law as applied there could not be regarded as “law” for Convention purposes. Consequently, the judicial system operating in Crimea after March 2014 was not “established by law.” Because the applicants’ cases were determined within that system, their Article 6 complaints were admissible and disclosed a breach.
The Court rejected the complaint of Ruslan Valentinovich Tarasov in application no. 26225/18 because he had merely represented Anatoliy Viktorovich Brovko in the domestic proceedings and therefore lacked victim status. It permitted Yuriy Anatolyevich Ryabokon to continue application no. 41806/15 for his deceased father. The Court found no need to examine the remaining Convention complaints and ordered Russia to pay the amounts listed in the appendix, generally EUR 6,000 per applicant for non-pecuniary damage, with specified costs awards in certain cases.
Key Takeaways
- Courts operating in Crimea under Russian law after March 2014 were not tribunals “established by law” within the meaning of Article 6 § 1.
- The Court retained jurisdiction because the relevant events predated Russia’s departure from the Convention and occurred within an area under Russia’s effective control.
- A representative who was not a party to the underlying proceedings could not claim victim status, while an heir with a legitimate interest could continue a deceased applicant’s case.
Why It Matters
The judgment applies the Court’s Grand Chamber findings on Crimea to individual civil and criminal cases. It confirms that decisions affecting civil rights or determining criminal charges violate Article 6 § 1 when issued by the post-March 2014 judicial system established there under Russian law.
The ruling also confirms that Russia’s cessation of Convention membership does not remove the Court’s authority to decide complaints based on events occurring before 16 September 2022.