CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 juin 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sA790A2B6 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#4d4d4d } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sD8E76205 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt } Published on 30 June 2025   FOURTH SECTION Applications nos. 72092/16 and 30742/17 Andrey Andreyevich LUGIN and Yuriy Mikhaylovich MIKHAYLOV against Russia lodged on 15 November 2016 and 25 April 2017 respectively communicated on 12 June 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES The applications concern various alleged violations of the applicants’ rights in Crimea after the Russian Federation started exercising effective control over the Crimean Peninsula in 2014 (see Ukraine v. Russia (re   Crimea) (dec.) [GC], nos. 20958/14 and 38334/18, § 335, 16 December 2020). The applicants are Ukrainian nationals who were sentenced to life imprisonment by Ukrainian courts in 2012, after having been convicted of multiple offences linked to organised criminal activity and murder. Following the Russian Federation’s assertion of jurisdiction over Crimea, the convictions handed down by the Ukrainian courts were reclassified under Russian criminal law by Russian “courts” in Crimea, with the final decisions taken by the “Supreme Court of the Republic of Crimea” on 11 September 2014 and 2 March 2015 respectively. On 16 May and 26 July 2016 Mr Lugin and Mr Mikhailov were transferred from the Simferopol Pre-Trial Detention Centre (SIZO) to penitentiary institutions located within the territory of the Russian Federation – specifically, the Vologda Region and the Republic of Mordovia respectively. In February 2017, within the framework of the ongoing criminal proceedings, both applicants were temporarily returned to the Simferopol SIZO. On 21   April 2017 the SIZO administration informed the applicants that they would be transferred back to their correctional colonies in the Russian Federation on 26 April 2017. The applicants objected to this decision, requesting instead to be transferred to Ukraine to serve the remainder of their sentences. In protest, they started a hunger strike. Both applicants were suffering from various chronic health problems at the time. On the day scheduled for their transportation, Mr Lugin inflicted an injury on himself with a sharp object in an attempt to prevent the transfer and was subsequently hospitalised. Nevertheless, Mr Mikhailov and Mr Lugin were transferred to the Russian Federation on 26 April and 2 May 2017, respectively, where they continue to serve their sentences. The applicants allege that during the transport they were subjected to inhuman conditions such as overcrowding (around 30 detainees per vehicle), poor temperature control, prolonged restraint in handcuffs, minimal or no access to toilets, and insufficient food and water. Relying on Article 3 of the Convention, the applicants complain of a lack of medical assistance during their hunger strike and of the poor conditions of their transportation. Additionally, Mr Lugin raises a complaint about inadequate medical treatment for his injuries, namely his allegedly premature discharge from the hospital and subsequent transfer. Both applicants also allege a failure by the Russian authorities to investigate their complaints under Article 3 of the Convention. The applicants further complain about their transfer from Crimea to penitentiary institutions within the Russian Federation to serve their sentences, asserting that this has , inter alia, severely hindered their ability to maintain essential social ties with their families, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention and Article 3 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention. Moreover, invoking Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 3 of Protocol No. 4 thereto, the applicants allege that their treatment by the Russian authorities as Russian nationals amounted to discriminatory treatment compared to other Ukrainian citizens convicted in the Russian Federation. Lastly, the applicants complain of the absence of effective remedies for the alleged violations, in breach of Article 13 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 3 of Protocol No. 4 thereto. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Have the applicants complied with the admissibility requirements set forth in Article 35 of the Convention?   2.     Have the applicants been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article   3 of the Convention? In particular:   (i)     In light of the applicants’ state of health, have the respondent Government fulfilled their obligation under Article 3 of the Convention to ensure that that the applicants’ health and well-being were adequately protected, including through the provision of the requisite medical assistance during the hunger strike and the follow-up treatment of Mr Lugin (see McGlinchey and Others v. the United Kingdom , no. 50390/99, § 46, ECHR   2003-V)?   (ii)     Did the conditions of the applicants’ transportation from Crimea to the Russian Federation amount to inhuman or degrading treatment?   3.     Were the applicants, who are Ukrainian nationals, expelled from the territory of their State, in breach of Article 3 § 1 of Protocol No. 4 and/or Article 8 of the Convention?   4.     Have the applicants suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of their rights under Article 3 of Protocol No. 4 and/or Article 8 of the Convention, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention?   5.     Did the applicants have at their disposal effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 13 of the Convention, in respect of their complaints under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention and Article 3 of Protocol No.   4 thereto?     APPENDIX   List of applications:   No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Nationality Represented by 1. 72092/16 Lugin and Mikhaylov v. Russia 15/11/2016 Andrey Andreyevich LUGIN Ukrainian Yuriy Mikhaylovich MIKHAYLOV Ukrainian Roman Yuriyovych MARTYNOVSKYY   2. 30742/17 Lugin and Mikhaylov v. Russia 25/04/2017 Andrey Andreyevich LUGIN Ukrainian Yuriy Mikhaylovich MIKHAYLOV Ukrainian