USEYNOV v. RUSSIA and 5 other applications

Published on 14 April 2025   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 41275/16 Edem Remziyevich USEYNOV against Russia and 5 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 24 March 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES The applications arise from the conflict between Ukraine and the Russian Federation. They concern, inter alia, the imposition of Russian citizenship on the applicants in the territory of Crimea following the Russian Federation’s assertion of jurisdiction over it in 2014. The applicants, Ukrainian nationals, were permanent residents of Crimea. According to Russian law - specifically the so-called “Accession Treaty” of 18 March 2014 and the Federal Constitutional Law of the Russian Federation no. 6‑FKZ of 21 March 2014 - Russian citizenship was automatically imposed on all residents of Crimea “from the date of admission of the Republic of Crimea into the Russian Federation”. The applicants (except the applicant in application no. 32101/21) claim that, under this legislation, Russian citizenship was forcibly imposed on them, which constituted an interference with their private life in violation of Article 8 of the Convention. Specifically, the applicants contend that they were compelled to acquire Russian nationality due to the absence of an effective opt-out system. The applicants in applications nos. 2862/20, 4663/20 and 32101/21 state that they renounced Russian citizenship but, as a result, allegedly faced restrictions in their enjoyment of certain rights compared to Russian Federation citizens in Crimea. The applicants in applications nos. 41275/16, 37728/18, 4663/20, 2862/20 and 32101/21 further complain of restrictions on their movement between Crimea and mainland Ukraine due to Crimea’s admission as a constituent entity of the Russian Federation and the application of Russian law to them. Additionally, the applicants in applications nos. 4663/20, 2862/20 and 32101/21, who renounced Russian citizenship, alleged a violation of their freedom to choose their residence under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 as they faced difficulties in obtaining residence permits in Crimea, and further claimed under Article 14 of the Convention that they were discriminated against as Ukrainian nationals. The applicant in application no. 17284/18 complains under Article 7 of the Convention about his conviction by the “Gagarinskiy District Court of Sevastopol” on 17 June 2017 for defaming a judge. In particular, he claims that the relevant provisions of Russian criminal law were neither accessible nor foreseeable, and that Ukrainian criminal law does not provide for criminal liability for the offence of defamation. Lastly, the applicant in application no. 41275/16, who is of Crimean Tatar origin, alleges a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No.1 to the Convention. He argues that his children, who are secondary school students in Crimea, are required to follow the Russian curriculum, which he claims is inconsistent with his family’s religious and philosophical convictions and misrepresents the history of the Crimean Tatar people. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.  Have the applicants complied with the admissibility requirements set forth in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?   2.  Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to respect for their private life under Article 8 § 1 of the Convention on account of: (a)  the imposition of the Russian citizenship on the applicants and the lack of effective opt-out system in all applications, except no. 32101/21 (see Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea) [GC], nos. 20958/14 and 38334/18, §§ 1038‑39, 25 June 2024); (b)  the renunciation of Russian citizenship by the applicants in applications nos. 2862/20, 4663/20 and 32101/21, and the restrictions in the enjoyment of certain rights as a consequence of that renunciation?   3.  In so far as applications nos. 41275/16, 37728/18, 4663/20, 2862/20 and 32101/21 are concerned, has there been a restriction on the applicants’ 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)?   4.  Have the applicants in applications nos. 4663/20, 2862/20 and 32101/21 suffered discrimination in the exercise of their Convention rights based on their Ukrainian nationality, in breach of Article 14 of the Convention and taken in conjunction with Article 8 and/or Article 2 of Protocol No. 4?   5.  In application no. 17284/18, has the applicant’s conviction for defamation been compatible with the requirements of Article 7 of the Convention?   6.  In so far as application no. 41275/16 is concerned, has there been a breach of the applicant’s right to have his children educated in conformity with his religious and philosophical convictions, guaranteed by Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?       APPENDIX   List of cases:     No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Nationality Represented by 1. 41275/16* Useynov v. Russia 01/07/2016 Edem Remziyevich USEYNOV 1973 Ukrainian Sergiy Anatoliyovych ZAYETS 2. 17284/18* Rubel v. Russia 15/03/2018 Leonid Arkadyevich RUBEL 1960 Ukrainian Sergiy Anatoliyovych ZAYETS 3. 37728/18* Zhuravkov v. Russia 26/07/2018 Andriy Volodymyrovych ZHURAVKOV 1985 Ukrainian Roman Yuriyovych MARTYNOVSKYY 4. 2862/20 Shengaleva v. Russia 31/12/2019 Nataliya Igorevna SHENGALEVA 1960 Ukrainian Sergiy Anatoliyovych ZAYETS 5. 4663/20 Dudyreva v. Russia 27/12/2019 Tamara Yakovlevna DUDYREVA 1946 Ukrainian   Deceased on 03/12/2020 HEIR: Mr Dudyrev Yakiv Georgiyovych Sergiy Anatoliyovych ZAYETS 6. 32101/21 Ramazanov v. Russia 25/05/2021 Enver Asanovich RAMAZANOV 1959 Ukrainian