Week-ending 15 January 2021
This week the European Court of Human Rights published three judgments concerning Russia, establishing violations of Articles 2 (right to life), 5 (right to liberty and security) and 8 (right to respect for private and family life).
In addition the European Court of Human Rights ruled that an application by Ukraine against Russia alleging human rights violations in Crimea in 2014 is admissible in part. The ECtHR found applications concerning alleged violations of the following articles admissible: 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition on torture), 5 (right to liberty and security), 6 (right to fair trial), 9 (right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion), 10 (freedom of expression), 11 (freedom of assembly and association), 14 (prohibition of discrimination) and Protocol 1 (Articles 1 – protection of property – and 2 – right to education).
PLOKHOVY v. RUSSIA, 22 December 2020
Art 2 • Positive obligations • Effective investigation • Death of applicant’s son by disease during compulsory military service after delayed access to adequate medical treatment, in breach of the duty to safeguard his life (substantive) • Absence of criminal investigation or other remedies capable of comprehensively establishing the circumstances of the death (procedural)
A violation of the substantive limb of Article 2 of the Convention; a violation of the procedural limb of Article 2 of the Convention; the respondent State is to pay the applicants jointly, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following amounts: EUR 295, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of pecuniary damage; EUR 33,800, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage; EUR 2,489, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, in respect of costs and expenses.
USMANOV v. RUSSIA, 22 December 2020
Art 8 • Expulsion • Respect for family life • Disproportionate and arbitrary annulment of applicant’s citizenship for omission of information about siblings, when applying ten years earlier • Two-pronged approach for examining deprivation of citizenship • 1. Measure constituting an interference with Art 8, in light of consequences of the annulment for the applicant • 2. Measure arbitrary, given lack of clarity of domestic law, its excessively formalistic approach, and inadequate procedural safeguards • Absence of a balancing exercise carried out by authorities
Art 8 • Respect for private life • Unjustified expulsion of applicant from Russian territory • No explanation for why the applicant was considered a national security threat • Failure in domestic proceedings to balance the interests at stake, taking into account Court general principles
A violation of Article 8 of the Convention on account of the annulment of the applicant’s Russian citizenship; a violation of Article 8 of the Convention on account of the decision to expel the applicant from Russian territory; Decides to continue to indicate to the Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court that it is desirable in the interests of the proper conduct of the proceedings not to expel the applicant until such time as the present judgment becomes final or until further notice; the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following amounts: EUR 162, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of pecuniary damage; EUR 10,000, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage; EUR 850, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of costs and expenses.
PEYET AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA, 14 January 2021
A violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention; a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table); the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table.
UKRAINE v. RUSSIA (RE CRIMEA), 16 December 2020
Lifts the interim measure indicated to the parties on 13 March 2014 in relation to Crimea under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court;
Holds, that the facts complained of by the applicant Government fall within the “jurisdiction” of the Russian Federation within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention, and dismisses the respondent Government’s preliminary objection of incompatibility ratione loci with the provisions of the Convention and the Protocols thereto in that regard;
Dismisses the respondent Government’s preliminary objection that the application “lacks the requirements of a genuine application”;
Declares that the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies is not applicable in the circumstances of the case and accordingly dismisses the respondent Government’s preliminary objection of non‑exhaustion of domestic remedies;
Declares admissible, without prejudging the merits, the applicant Government’s complaints regarding the period under consideration concerning:
(a) the alleged existence of an administrative practice of enforced disappearances and of a lack of an effective investigation into the alleged existence of such an administrative practice, in violation of Article 2 of the Convention;
(b) the alleged existence of an administrative practice of ill-treatment, in violation of Article 3 of the Convention;
(c) the alleged existence of an administrative practice of unlawful detention, in violation of Article 5 of the Convention;
(d) the alleged existence of an administrative practice of extending the Russian Federation’s laws to Crimea and the resulting effect that as from 27 February 2014 the courts in Crimea could not be considered to have been “established by law” within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention;
(e) the alleged existence of an administrative practice of unlawful automatic imposition of Russian citizenship (regarding the system of opting out of Russian citizenship), in violation of Article 8 of the Convention;
(f) the alleged existence of an administrative practice of arbitrary raids of private dwellings, in violation of Article 8 of the Convention;
(g) the alleged existence of an administrative practice on account of the harassment and intimidation of religious leaders not conforming to the Russian Orthodox faith, arbitrary raids of places of worship and confiscation of religious property, in violation of Article 9 of the Convention;
(h) the alleged existence of an administrative practice of suppression of non-Russian media, in violation of Article 10 of the Convention;
(i) the alleged existence of an administrative practice of prohibiting public gatherings and manifestations of support, as well as intimidation and arbitrary detention of organisers of demonstrations, in violation of Article 11 of the Convention;
(j) the alleged existence of an administrative practice of expropriation without compensation of property from civilians and private enterprises, in violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention;
(k) the alleged existence of an administrative practice of suppression of the Ukrainian language in schools and harassment of Ukrainian‑speaking children at school, in violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention;
(l) the alleged existence of an administrative practice of restricting the freedom of movement between Crimea and mainland Ukraine, resulting from the de facto transformation (by the respondent State) of the administrative border line into a State border (between the Russian Federation and Ukraine), in violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention;
(m) the alleged existence of an administrative practice targeting Crimean Tatars, in violation of Article 14 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Articles 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Convention;
(n) the alleged existence of an administrative practice targeting Crimean Tatars, in violation of Article 14 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention;
(m) the alleged existence of an administrative practice targeting Crimean Tatars, in violation of Article 14 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Articles 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Convention;
(n) the alleged existence of an administrative practice targeting Crimean Tatars, in violation of Article 14 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention;Decides to give notice to the respondent Government of the complaint about the alleged transfers of “convicts” to the territory of the Russian Federation, in violation of Article 8 of the Convention, in accordance with Rule 51 § 1, read together with Rule 71 § 1 of the Rules of Court;
Decides to join application no. 38334/18 to the present case, in accordance with Rule 42 § 1, read together with Rule 71 § 1 of the Rules of Court and to examine, exceptionally, the admissibility and merits of the complaints raised therein together with the above-mentioned transfer of “convicts” complaint at the same time as the merits stage of the proceedings in accordance with Article 29 § 2 of the Convention and to invite the respondent Government to submit their observations on the admissibility and merits of this part of the case, pursuant to Rules 51 § 3 and 58 § 1, read together with Rule 71 § 1.
“Done in English and in French and delivered at a public hearing in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 14 January 2021.”
Media sources:
RFE/RL, 14 January 2021: The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has ruled that a complaint brought by Ukraine against Russia alleging human rights violations in the Crimean Peninsula in 2014 is “partly admissible.” The Strasbourg-based court was ruling on January 14, among other issues, whether Russia effectively controlled the Ukrainian territory before the State Duma on March 20, 2014 ratified a treaty that Russian President Vladimir Putin signed as part of the annexation process. Kyiv insists Moscow controlled the peninsula since February 27, 2014 and that Russian forces tortured and killed police as well as civilians, allegations that Moscow denies.
Human Rights in Ukraine, 15 January 2021: It took frustratingly long to get there, but the European Court of Human Rights [ECHR] has finally paved the way for multiple judgements over Russia’s violations of human rights in occupied Crimea. The Grand Chamber decision on 14 January 2021 found Ukraine’s complaints against Russia over violations in Crimea partly admissible and essentially determined that Russia has occupied Crimea since 27 February 2014. The only reason it was deemed partly, not wholly, admissible, was because ECHR considered that Ukraine had not provided sufficient proof to back a very small part of the huge number of complaints.
