Published on 21 November 2022

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 7940/16 Lyudmila Ivanovna SHABANOVA against Russia and Ukraine and 5 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 28 October 2022

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The applications originate from the conflict between Ukraine and the Russian Federation when the Russian Federation asserted their jurisdiction over Crimea in 2014.

The main issue which is raised by the applicants in these applications pertains to non-enforcement on the Crimean territory of the national courts’ judgments holding in their favour. In applications nos. 52964/16, 14016/17, 73806/16 and 33200/18 the judgments in question had been handed down by the Ukrainian courts located on the territory of Crimea before the Russian Federation asserted their jurisdiction. In applications nos. 7940/16 and 50445/16 the judgments had been delivered by the Ukrainian courts located outside the Crimean territory after the Russian Federation had asserted their jurisdiction.

The applicants’ main complaint concerns the failure of the Russian and/or Ukrainian authorities to enforce the above-mentioned courts’ judgments delivered in their favour. Additionally, the applicants complain about an alleged interference with their right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions and also about the alleged absence of effective domestic remedies in respect of their aforementioned complaints.

.

QUESTIONS TO THE UKRAINIAN AND RUSSIAN GOVERNMENTS AND TO THE APPLICANT IN APPLICATION No. 50445/16

1. Has the applicant complied with the admissibility requirements set forth in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?

2. Has there been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the alleged non-enforcement of the judgment in the applicant’s case?

3. Has there been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the alleged failure to enforce that judgment?

4. Has there been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in the present case? In particular, did the applicant have an effective domestic remedy in respect of the aforementioned alleged failure to enforce the judgment in a timely manner?

QUESTIONS TO THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT AND TO THE APPLICANTS IN APPLICATIONS Nos. 7940/16, 52964/16, 73806/16, 14016/17 AND 33200/18

1. Have the applicants complied with the admissibility requirements set forth in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?

2. Has there been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the alleged non-enforcement of the judgments in the applicants’ cases?

3. Has there been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the alleged failure to enforce the judgments?

4. Has there been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in the present cases? In particular, did the applicants have an effective domestic remedy in respect of the aforementioned alleged failure to enforce the judgments in a timely manner?

APPENDIX

No.

Application no.

Case name

Lodged on

Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality

Represented by

1.

7940/16

Shabanova v. Russia and Ukraine

26/01/2016

Lyudmila Ivanovna SHABANOVA 1952 Frunze Ukrainian

2.

50445/16

Voronova v. Russia and Ukraine

12/08/2016

Valentyna Dmytrivna VORONOVA 1949 Kharkiv Ukrainian

Andriy Anatoliyovych KRISTENKO

3.

52964/16

Kiselev and Others v. Russia

01/11/2016

Andrey Aleksandrovich KISELEV 1967 Simferopol Ukrainian Dariya Andreyevna KRET 1985 Simferopol Ukrainian Nataliya Vasilyevna KRET 1966 Simferopol Ukrainian

4.

73806/16

Gusev and Guseva v. Russia

24/11/2016

Vladimir Lvovich GUSEV 1961 Simferopol Russian, Ukrainian Darya Vladimirovna GUSEVA 1992 Simferopol Russian, Ukrainian

5.

14016/17

Lopatin v. Russia

08/02/2017

Vladimir Yulyevich LOPATIN 1955 Moscow Russian, Ukrainian

6.

33200/18

Shchur v. Russia

29/06/2018

Mykhaylo Oleksiyovych SHCHUR 1964 Ruchyi Ukrainian