CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 octobre 2025

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Published on 20 October 2025   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 27068/25 Eskender Enverovych Bariyev against Russia lodged on 27 September 2019 communicated on 3 October 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application arises from the conflict between Ukraine and the Russian Federation following the invasion and annexation of Crimea by Russia in 2014. It concerns the criminal prosecution of the applicant. The applicant, is a member of the Mejlis and Head of the NGO Crimean Tatar Resource Centre . The applicant, who is a Ukrainian national, left Crimea in 2014 and relocated to Kyiv as he feared repression by the Russian authorities after having received direct threats. In 2015, representatives of the Russian Federal Security Service visited the applicant’s relatives in Crimea to look of him. In February 2019 the applicant learned that on 4 April 2018 a criminal case had been initiated against him by the Russian “authorities” in Crimea under the provisions of the Russian Criminal Code (Article 280.1 § 2 – Public calls for actions aimed at violating the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation, committed through mass media or information and telecommunication networks (including the Internet)). It concerned a video of a speech the applicant had delivered during a pro-Ukrainian meeting (“ viche ”) on Maidan square in Kyiv in 2015. On 24 December 2018 the local “Kyiv District Court of Simferopol” had ordered applicant’s detention on remand for a period of two months, starting from the date of his extradition to Russia or arrest in Russia. This was upheld by the “Supreme Court of Crimea” on 29 January 2019. The applicant was placed on the federal and international wanted lists. Insofar as his criminal conviction is concerned, the applicant alleges a violation of Articles 6, 7, 13 and Article 18 of the Convention, complaining that his prosecution was based on the retroactive application of Russian law; that the courts adjudicating his case were not established by law; and that the measures complained of were ultimately aimed at punishing and silencing the political opposition represented by Mejlis. Relying on Article 10 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the prosecution brought against him for the speech he had delivered in Kyiv was not prescribed by law. He additionally invokes Article 8 and Article 2 of Protocol no. 4 complaining about the imposition of Russian nationality on him and his inability to return to Crimea or travel to states in which he faces a risk of being extradited to the Russian Federation in view of the criminal conviction against him.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant complied with the admissibility requirements set forth in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?   2.     Was the applicant’s case adjudicated by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea) , [GC], nos. 20958/14 and 38334/18, §§   943 ‑ 46, 25 June 2024?   3.     Was the applicant’s conviction compatible with the requirements of Article 7 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Ukraine v. Russia (re   Crimea) [GC], cited above, §§ 1274-78)?   4.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his private and family life under Article 8 §   1 of the Convention on account of the imposition of Russian citizenship on him and the lack of an effective system of opting-out (see Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea) [GC], nos.   20958/14 and 38334/18, §§   1038 ‑ 39, 25 June 2024)?   5.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression, in particular his right to impart information and ideas, contrary to Article   10 of the Convention?   6.     Were the restrictions imposed by the respondent State in the present case applied for a purpose other than those envisaged by that provision, contrary to Article   18 of the Convention (see Ukraine v. Russia (re   Crimea) [GC], cited above, §§ 1351-82)?   7.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his Convention complaints, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?   8.     Has there been a restriction on the applicant’s right to liberty of movement, guaranteed by Article   2 §   1 of Protocol No.   4 to the Convention (see Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea) [GC], cited above, §§   1174-75)?