Search
document

MIROSHNYK v. RUSSIA and 12 other applications

Doc ref: 83345/17, 83358/17, 1604/18, 10262/18, 35241/18, 8819/19, 11285/19, 29244/19, 47073/19, 27716/21, 32... • ECHR ID: 001-228116

Document date: September 2, 2023

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 0

MIROSHNYK v. RUSSIA and 12 other applications

Doc ref: 83345/17, 83358/17, 1604/18, 10262/18, 35241/18, 8819/19, 11285/19, 29244/19, 47073/19, 27716/21, 32... • ECHR ID: 001-228116

Document date: September 2, 2023

Cited paragraphs only

Published on 9 October 2023

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 83345/17 Volodymyr Andriyovych MIROSHNYK against Russia and 12 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 2 September 2023

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The applications originate from the conflict between Ukraine and the Russian Federation when the latter asserted its jurisdiction over Crimea in 2014. It concerns, among other things, the allegedly unlawful conviction and subsequent detention of the applicants. Most of the applicants are serving their prison sentences in correctional detention facilities on the territory of Russia.

The applicant in application no. 83345/17 complains, inter alia , under Article 5 of the Convention that his detention after his conviction by Russian courts in Crimea and according to Russian law on 10 February 2017, which was confirmed on appeal on 31 May 2017, was unlawful, as the decisions convicting him had not been delivered by a competent court.

The applicant in application no. 27716/21 also alleges a violation of Article 6 of the Convention, namely that the Russian courts in Crimea which examined his case were not independent and impartial tribunals established by law since those courts applied the substantive and procedural laws of Russia in violation of Ukrainian laws.

In addition, the applicant in application no. 10262/18 complains that his conviction breached his rights under Article 7 of the Convention due to the lack of foreseeability and certainty of the law which was applied in his case and which led to his conviction.

Furthermore, in application no. 47073/19, the applicant alleges that his imprisonment on the territory of Russia, far away from his home and family in Crimea, violates his right to respect for his family life under Article 8 of the Convention.

Lastly, referring, inter alia , to Article 3 of Protocol no. 4 to the Convention the applicants in all applications, except for applications nos. 10262/18 and 27716/21, complain that they were transferred from Crimea to the detention facilities in the Russian Federation to serve their sentences. Thus, the applicants state that they, being Ukrainian nationals, were expelled from the territory of their State. Moreover, referring to Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 3 of Protocol no. 4 thereto, the applicant in application no. 6315/22 also alleges that he was treated as a Russian national notwithstanding the fact that he was in fact a Ukrainian national on â€œthe occupied territoryâ€, and he alleges that this represented a discriminatory treatment.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

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

2. Was the applicant in application no. 83345/17 deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 Â§ 1 (a) of the Convention? In particular, as regards the judgment against him delivered by Russian courts in Crimea, which was upheld on appeal, was the applicant convicted by a â€œcompetent courtâ€ within the meaning of Article 5 Â§ 1 (a) of the Convention?

To that end, did the decision taken by the courts in the applicantâ€™s case comply with the requirement of lawfulness within the meaning of Article 5 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Mozer v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 11138/10, Â§ 150, 23 February 2016)?

3. Did the applicant in application no. 27716/21 have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law, in accordance with Article 6 Â§ 1 of the Convention?

4. Did the relevant provisions on the basis of which the applicant in application no. 10262/18 was convicted fulfil the qualitative requirements under Article 7 of the Convention (see Scoppola v. Italy (no. 2) [GC], no. 10249/03, Â§ 99, 17 September 2009)?

5. As regards application no. 47073/19, was the applicantâ€™s transfer to the detention facility in Russia compatible with the guarantees of Article 8 of the Convention?

6. Were the applicants, Ukrainian nationals, who raise complaints under this provision, expelled from the territory of their State, in breach of Article 3 Â§ 1 of Protocol No. 4 and/or Article 8 of the Convention?

7. Has the applicant in application no. 6315/22 suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of his rights under Article 3 Â§ 1 of Protocol No. 4 contrary to Article 14 of the Convention?

8. Finally, did the alleged acts which gave rise to the applicantsâ€™ complaints have a basis in â€œlawâ€ within the meaning of the Convention provisions relied on by them?

APPENDIX

List of applications

No.

Application no.

Case name

Lodged on

Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality

Represented by

83345/17

Miroshnyk

v. Russia

27/11/2017

Volodymyr Andriyovych MIROSHNYK 1978 Kochubeyevske Ukrainian

Roman

Yuriyovych MARTYNOVSKYY

83358/17

Chudesenko v. Russia

03/12/2017

Andrey Vladimirovich CHUDESENKO 1982 Zverevo Ukrainian

Roman

Yuriyovych MARTYNOVSKYY

1604/18

Cherepnin

v. Russia

23/10/2017

Ruslan

Nikolayevich CHEREPNIN 1980 Novyy Sad Ukrainian

10262/18

Farin

v. Russia

16/02/2018

Oleg

Petrovych

FARIN 1967 Sevastopol Ukrainian

Sergiy

Anatoliyovych ZAYETS

35241/18

Ponomaryov v. Russia

14/07/2018

Sergiy Volodymyrovych PONOMARYOV 1986 Saratov Ukrainian

Sergiy

Anatoliyovych ZAYETS

8819/19

Limeshko

v. Russia

05/02/2019

Gennadiy Gennadyevich LIMESHKO 1992 Dydymkin Ukrainian

Roman

Yuriyovych MARTYNOVSKYY

11285/19

Yakimenko v. Russia

15/02/2019

Vladimir Grigoryevich YAKIMENKO 1984 Pugachev Ukrainian

Roman

Yuriyovych MARTYNOVSKYY

29244/19

Panov

v. Russia

24/04/2019

Yevgen Oleksandrovych PANOV 1977 Energodar Ukrainian

Anastasiya Romanivna MARTYNOVSKA

47073/19

Balukh

v. Russia

09/08/2019

Volodymyr Grygorovych BALUKH 1971 Serebryanka Ukrainian

Mykhaylo Oleksandrovych TARAKHKALO

10.

27716/21

Kolomiychuk v. Russia

27/04/2021

Andrey

Anatolyevich KOLOMIYCHUK 1972 Razdolnoye Ukrainian

11.

32584/21

Fedorov

v. Russia

26/05/2021

Igor

Yuryevich FEDOROV 1984 Astrakhan Ukrainian

12.

33340/21

Buteskul

v. Russia

10/06/2021

Aleksandr Fedorovich BUTESKUL 1977 Astrakhan Ukrainian

13.

6315/22

Byelov

v. Russia

21/01/2022

Oleksandr Volodymyrovych BYELOV 1969 Volgograd Ukrainian

Sergiy Anatoliyovych ZAYETS

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant