CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 janvier 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 30 January 2024   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 19186/15 Dmitriy Nikolayevich KARAULOV against Russia lodged on 9 April 2015 communicated on 11 January 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application originates 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 applicant. The applicant is a Ukrainian national who was detained on remand and then his detention continued after his conviction before the Russian Federation asserted its jurisdiction in 2014. Subsequently, the applicant continued to be detained by Russian authorities; Russian courts requalified the offences under Russian law, and convicted the applicant for the offences committed under Ukrainian jurisdiction. The applicant alleges a violation of Article 6 of the Convention, namely that the court in Crimea examining his case was not an independent and impartial tribunal established by law, since that court applied substantive and procedural laws of Russia concerning offences committed in Ukraine in 2009.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant complied with the admissibility requirements set forth in Article   35   of the Convention?   2.     Did the applicant 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 § 1 of the Convention ?