CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 novembre 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 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 1 December 2025   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 34556/16 Akhtem Zeytullayovych CHYYGOZ against Russia lodged on 24 May 2016 communicated on 10 November 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application arises from the conflict between Ukraine and the Russian Federation, following the latter’s annexation of Crimea in 2014. It concerns the applicant’s criminal conviction for participating in a pro ‑ Ukrainian meeting in Crimea. The applicant is a serving Member of the Ukrainian Parliament, one of the leaders of the Crimean Tatars and deputy head of the Mejlis - the high representative and executive body of the Crimean Tatar people. On 26 February 2014 a demonstration in support of Ukraine’s territorial integrity was held outside the Crimea Parliament building in Simferopol. The meeting turned violent resulting in two deaths and several dozen injuries. No arrests were made on the day. However, almost a year later, on 29 January 2015 the applicant was arrested by the Crimean “police” on suspicion of organising “mass riots” on 26 February 2014. Following his arrest, the applicant was detained and subsequently convicted and sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment by the Russian “courts” in Crimea. On 25 October 2017 he was released pursuant to an act of clemency of the Russian President and transferred from Crimea to Russia, then to Kyiv, Ukraine. Relying on Article 5 § 5 of the Convention, the applicant complains of the absence of an enforceable right to compensation for his unlawful detention in Crimea. Relying on Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention, the applicant argues that his criminal prosecution for participating in a demonstration was unlawful and was intended to silence his opposition to the annexation of Crimea. Additionally, the applicant submits that he had no effective remedy for the alleged breaches of Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention. Finally, relying on Article 18 of the Convention, the applicant claims that his detention and criminal conviction had an ulterior purpose to punish him for his pro-Ukrainian political activity in Crimea. He alleges in this connection that his authority within the Crimean Tatar community and his role as one of its leaders were used as arguments by the “courts” in Crimea trying his case. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant complied with the admissibility requirements set forth in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?   2.     Did the applicant have an effective and enforceable right to compensation for his unlawful detention, as required by Article 5 § 5 of the Convention?   3.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s rights to freedom of expression and to freedom of peaceful assembly contrary to Articles   10 and   11 of the Convention (see Ukraine v. Russia ( re Crimea) [GC], nos.   20958/14 and 38334/18, §§ 1323-27, 25 June 2024; Osmani and Others v. the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (dec.), no. 50841/99, 11   October 2001)?   4.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaints under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?   5.     Were the restrictions imposed by the State in the present case, purportedly pursuant to Articles 5, 10 and 11 of the Convention, 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)?