Published on 8 June 2026
 
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 23943/14
Server Talyatovych MURTAZAYEV and Others
against Russia and Ukraine
communicated on 21 May 2026
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application was lodged by Mr S. Murtazayev and his family members, namely his wife, Ms A. Murtazayeva, and his son, Mr A. Murtazayev. It concerns issues relating to, and arising from Mr S. Murtazayev’s detention in Crimea in October 2013, which continued after the Russian Federation asserted its jurisdiction over the peninsula in February 2014.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
On 25 October 2013 Mr S. Murtazayev was arrested by the Ukrainian investigative authorities in Crimea on suspicion of unlawful production, purchase and storage of narcotic drugs. On 28 October 2013 the Kyiv District Court of Simferopol ordered his pre-trial detention, which was subsequently extended. The latest decision taken by the Ukrainian court extended the applicant’s detention until 23 March 2014. The applicant was held in the Simferopol pre-trial detention centre (“the Simferopol SIZO”).
Mr S. Murtazayev described the conditions of his detention as follows: approximately 2,5 sq. m of personal space; poor sanitary conditions; low temperatures; lack of furniture and ventilation; absence of hot water in the cells; insufficient food; and daily outdoor exercise limited to one hour. He also alleged that the conditions at the Kyiv District Court of Simferopol on the days of the hearings held on 21 November and 25 December 2013 were inadequate, as he had no access to food or water for six to seven hours, the available space was limited to approximately 3 sq. m per person, and that there was no access to a toilet or ventilation.
Following his arrest, Mr S. Murtazayev and his wife and son requested authorisation for family visits on 11 and 13 November 2013. However, their requests were rejected by the investigator with reference to Section 12 of the Pre‑Trial Detention Act. Mr S. Murtazayev also requested a meeting with a mullah, which was likewise refused on the same grounds.
In a letter dated 14 February 2014, the applicant informed his defence lawyer that he did not wish to lodge an application with the Court, as he considered that his rights under the Convention had not been violated. However, the applicant’s representative later submitted that this statement had been made under pressure from the Simferopol SIZO administration.
Following the assertion of jurisdiction by the Russian Federation over Crimea, on 20 March 2014 the “Belogorodskiy District Court of the Republic of Crimea” ordered the extension of the applicant’s pre-trial detention until 20 May 2014.
On 20 May 2014 the Russian investigative authorities instituted new criminal proceedings against the applicant in respect of the same events, but under Russian criminal law. On the same day the “Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol” ordered his pre-trial detention until 20 July 2014. That detention was subsequently extended on several occasions. The applicant challenged those decisions, but without success.
On 20 March 2015 the applicant was convicted and sentenced to six years of imprisonment by the “Belogorodskiy District Court of the Republic of Crimea”. That judgment was upheld by the higher courts.
COMPLAINTSRelying on Article 3 of the Convention, Mr S. Murtazayev complains against Ukraine about the conditions of his detention in the Simferopol SIZO and at the Kyiv District Court of Simferopol on the days of the hearings. He further alleges that he did not have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy in respect of those complaints, in breach of Article 13 taken in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention. He also complains under Article 34 of the Convention that he was subjected to pressure by the Simferopol SIZO administration in connection with his intended recourse to the Court.
All three applicants complain under Article 8 of the Convention against Ukraine, about the restrictions on family visits imposed during Mr S. Murtazayev’s detention. Additionally, Mr S. Murtazayev complains under Article 9 of the Convention that his freedom of religion was breached as a result of the refusal to authorise a meeting with a mullah during his pre‑trial detention. In this connection, all applicants argue that Section 12 of the Pre-Trial Detention Act, as in force at the relevant time, did not indicate with sufficient clarity the scope and manner of the discretion conferred on the public authorities in regulating visits of detainees by their relatives or other persons.
Lastly, Mr S. Murtazayev complains against Russia that his detention, as ordered on 20 March 2014 by the “Belogorodskiy District Court of the Republic of Crimea” and on 20 May 2014 by the “Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol”, and as subsequently extended, was in breach of Article 5 §§ 1, 3, 4 and 5 of the Convention.
QUESTIONS TO THE APPLICANTS AND THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT
1.  Have the applicants, in their applications against Ukraine, complied with the admissibility requirements set out in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention in respect of their complaints below?
 
2.  Has there been any hindrance by the respondent State to the effective exercise of Mr S. Murtazayev’s right of individual application, as guaranteed by Article 34 of the Convention (see Sergey Antonov v. Ukraine, no. 40512/13, §§ 105‑10, 22 October 2015)?
 
3.  Did the conditions of Mr S. Murtazayev’s detention in the Simferopol SIZO and the Kyiv District Court of Simferopol amount to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention? If so, did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy in respect of that complaint, as required by Article 13 of the Convention (see Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, 28 March 2006, and Sukachov v. Ukraine, no. 14057/17, 30 January 2020)?
 
4.  Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their family life, within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention, on account of the refusal to allow meetings during Mr S. Murtazayev’s detention? If so, was that interference justified under Article 8 § 2 of the Convention (see Shalimov v. Ukraine, no. 20808/02, §§ 84-91, 4 March 2010, and Feldman v. Ukraine (no.2), no. 42921/09, §§ 22-29, 12 January 2012)?
 
5.  Has there been an interference with Mr S. Murtazayev’s right to freedom of religion, within the meaning of Article 9 § 1 of the Convention, on account of the refusal to allow him to meet with a mullah? If so, was that interference justified under Article 9 § 2 of the Convention (see Poltoratskiy v. Ukraine, no. 38812/97, § 167, ECHR 2003‑V)?
QUESTIONS TO THE APPLICANTS AND THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT
1.  Has Mr S. Murtazayev, in his application against the Russian Federation, complied with the admissibility requirements set out in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention in respect of his complaints below?
 
2.  Was Mr S. Murtazayev deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was his detention “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law” (see Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea) [GC], nos. 20958/14 and 38334/18, §§ 943-46 and 998, 25 June 2024)?
 
3.  Having regard to the requirements of Article 5 § 5 and Article 13 in conjunction with Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, has Mr S. Murtazayev had at his disposal an effective and enforceable remedy to claim compensation for his detention allegedly in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?
 
APPENDIX
List of applicants:
 
No.
Applicant’s Name
Year of birth
Nationality
Represented by
1.
Server Talyatovych MURTAZAYEV
1962
Ukrainian
Sergiy Sergiyovych PONOMARYOV
 
2.
Asan Serverovych MURTAZAYEV
1990
Ukrainian
3.
Aliye Makhmudivna MURTAZAYEVA
1964
Ukrainian