CP_Russia_ENG

date on which the judgment becomes final, to all victims of delayed enforcement of judgments imposing obligations in kind who had lodged their applications with the European Court of Human Rights before today’s judgment and whose cases were or will be communicated to the Russian Government. The Court also decided to adjourn, for a maximum of two years, the proceedings in all such cases pending the adoption of the above measures by the State.

Ananyev and Other v. Russia

10.01.2012

The case concerned the applicants’ complaints that they had been detained in inhuman and degrading conditions in remand centres awaiting criminal trials against them.

Violation of Articles 3 and 13 (right to an effective remedy)

Under Article 46 (enforcement of the Court judgments), the Court held that the Russian Government had to:

-improve the material conditions of detention, by shielding the toilets in cells, removing thick netting from cell windows and increasing the frequency of showers;

-change the applicable legal framework, as well as practices and attitudes;

-ensure that pre-trial detention is only used in absolutely necessary cases;

-establish maximum capacity for each remand prison; and,

-ensure that victims can complain effectively about inadequate conditions of detention and that they obtain appropriate compensation.

Russian version press release

Burdov (No 2) v. Russia

15.01.2009 First pilot judgment

Russia’s non-compliance with domestic court decisions is the largest recurrent issue in all Russian applications concerning about one third of them. Burdov No 2 is the first pilot judgment adopted in respect of Russia. It ordered the introduction of an effective domestic remedy in cases of nonenforcement of domestic judicial decisions and the settlement of similar cases pending before the Court.

Violations of Articles 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and 13 (right to an effective remedy)

- 31 -

Decision on admissibility in post-Burdov No. 2 cases

Nagovitsyn and Nalgiyev v. Russia Fakhretdinov and Others v. Russia

24.09.2010 (Decisions)

The cases concerned either the non-enforcement of domestic court judgments in the applicants’ favour (Nagovitsyn and Nalgiyev) or the excessive length of court proceedings (Fakhretdinov and Others).

The Court decided that the remedy adopted by Russia in response to the Burdov No. 2 pilot judgment had to be exhausted before applying to the European Court of Human Rights. Applications: inadmissible.

Russian version Press Release

Inter-state case

Georgia v. Russia (III) (no. 61186/09) was lodged on 16 November 2009 in connection with the detention of four Georgian minors by the de facto authorities of South Ossetia. Following a visit to South Ossetia by the Human Rights Commissioner of the Council of Europe, the four minors and a further one who had been previously detained were released from detention. On 29 January 2010 the Georgian Government informed the Court that they no longer wished to maintain the case. Therefore, on 16 March 2010 a Chamber decided to strike the application out of its list of cases (Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention).

Noteworthy pending cases

Inter-State case Georgia v. Russia

One case is pending before a Chamber

Georgia v. Russia (IV) (no. 39611/18) was lodged on 22 August 2018. It relates to the alleged recent deterioration of the human-rights situation along the administrative boundary lines between Georgian-controlled territory and Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

There are almost 600 individual applications concerning the hostilities in 2008, against Georgia, against Russia or against both States.

Grand Chamber

Four Ukraine v. Russia inter-State cases

Two are pending before the Grand Chamber

Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea) (application nos. 20958/14 and 38334/18)

The case concerns Ukraine’s allegations of a pattern (“administrative practice”) of violations of the European Convention on Human Rights by the Russian Federation in Crimea[1].

Application declared partly admissible. The decision will be followed by a judgment at a later date.

Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia (nos. 8019/16, 43800/14 and 28525/20)

On 27 November 2020 the Grand Chamber decided to join two inter-State applications, which were pending before a Chamber, namely, Ukraine v. Russia (II) (no. 43800/14) and The Netherlands v. Russia (no. 28525/20), to the inter-State application Ukraine v. Russia (no. 8019/16).

See press release of 4 December 2020.

A Grand Chamber hearing will take place on 26 January 2022.

Two other cases are pending before a

Chamber

Ukraine v. Russia (IX) (no. 10691/21) was lodged on 19 February 2021. The case concerns the Ukranian Government’s allegations of an ongoing administrative practice by the Russian Federation consisting of targeted assassination operations against perceived opponents of the Russian Federation, in Russia and on the territory of other States (see press release).

Ukraine v. Russia (VIII) (no. 55855/18) was lodged on 29 November 2018 and relates to the naval incident that took place in the Kerch Strait in November

[1] “Crimea” refers to both the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (ARC) and the City of Sevastopol.

- 32 -

2018, which led to the capture of three Ukrainian naval vessels and their crews.

Another case, Ukraine v. Russia (III)

(no. 49537/14), was struck off after the Ukrainian Government stated that it did not wish to pursue it.

Pending individual applications concerning the hostilities in Eastern Ukraine and the events in Crimea

To date there are over 8,500 individual applications before the Court which appear to be related to the events in Crimea, Eastern Ukraine and the Sea of Azov. Amongst these applications, the Court informed the respondent Government of the applications lodged by relatives of victims of the downing of Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 in July 2014 (Ioppa v.

Ukraine and 3 Other applications, no. 73776/14, and Ayley and Others v. Russia, no. 25714/16 and Angline and Others v. Russia, no. 56328/18), the case of a Ukrainian Air Force servicewoman who had been held by armed groups in eastern Ukraine and by Russia for almost two years (Savchenko v. Russia, no. 50171/14) and a case concerning the imprisoned film director Oleg Sentsov (Sentsov v. Russia, no. 48881/14).

Further information can be found in the press releases published on 27 August 2018 (press release), 17 December 2018 (press release) and on 4 April 2019 (press release).

Inter-state application Russia v. Ukraine

Russia v. Ukraine (no. 36958/21): concerns the Russian Government’s allegations of, among other things, killings, abductions, forced displacement, interference with the right to vote, restrictions on the use of the Russian language and attacks on Russian embassies and consulates. They also complain about the water supply to Crimea at the Northern Crimean Canal being switched off and allege that Ukraine was responsible for the deaths of those on board Malaysia Airlines

Flight MH17 because it failed to close its airspace.

See press release of 23.07.2021.

Khasanov and Rakhmanov v. Russia (application nos. 28492/15 and 49975/15)

The case concerns the applicants’ allegation that they risked ill-treatment if extradited to Kyrgyzstan because they belonged to the Uzbek ethnic minority, who have been persecuted by the authorities since interethnic clashes in 2010.

Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention, the applicants complain that their removal to Kyrgyzstan would put them at real risk of ill-treatment, alleging in particular that the Kyrgyz authorities’ assurances are unreliable.

In its Chamber judgment of 19 November 2019, the Court held, by five votes to two, that there would be no violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights if the applicants were extradited to Kyrgyzstan.

The Chamber further decided, by six votes to one, to continue to indicate to the Russian Government not to extradite or otherwise involuntarily remove the applicants to Kyrgyzstan until the Chamber judgment had become final or until further order.

On 15 April 2020 the Grand Chamber Panel accepted the applicants’ request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber.

A Grand Chamber hearing took place on 20 January 2021

Chamber

Ecodefence and Others v. Russia (no. 9988/13)

Case communicated to the Government in March 2017

The applicants, eleven Russian NGOs, complain under Articles 10 (freedom of

expression) and 11 (freedom of assembly and association) of the Convention, concerning the quality of the Foreign Agents Act adopted in 2012, their persecution for failing to register as foreign agents, and excessive State control.

Pending cases Navalnyy

Navalnyy v. Russia (no. 62670/12)

Case communicated on 17 November 2016

Navalnyy v. Russia (no. 32058/13)

Case communicated on 15 May 2014

Navalnyy v. Russia (no. 1176/15)

Case communicated on 20 February 2018

Navalnyy v. Russia (no. 25809/17)

Case communicated on 19 June 2017

Navalnyy v. Russia (no. 55589/17)

Case communicated on 28 January 2020

Navalnyy v. Russia (no. 67894/17)

Case communicated on 9 March 2018

Navalnyy and Ofitserov v. Russia (no. 78193/17)

Case communicated on 21 December 2017

Navalnyy v. Russia (no. 56491/18)

Case communicated on 28 January 2020

Navalnyy v. Russia (no. 36418/20)

Case communicated on 12 January 2021

Navalnyy v. Russia (no. 4743/21)

Case communicated on 16 April 2021

Navalnyy and Others v. Russia (no. 22357/21)

Request for factual information from Government on 7 May 2021

Interim measure: decision not to apply (Rule 39) on 31 May 2021

Interim measure request out of scope (Rule 39) on 17 September 2021