The judgment in *Ametov and Others v. Russia* (application no. 73977/14) is a significant ruling concerning the human rights situation in occupied Crimea. **:** The case addresses the administrative prosecution of 32 individuals, primarily of Crimean Tatar origin, who were fined for participating in peaceful demonstrations on 3 May 2014 in support of Crimean Tatar leader Mustafa Dzhemilev. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) confirmed its jurisdiction over the Russian Federation for acts occurring in Crimea prior to September 2022. The Court found that the Russian judicial system operating in Crimea could not be considered “established by law,” thereby violating the applicants’ right to a fair trial. Furthermore, the Court determined that the prosecution of these individuals for peaceful assembly constituted a violation of their rights under Article 11 of the Convention. This ruling reinforces the legal position that the extension of Russian law to the occupied peninsula is incompatible with the Convention.
### Structure and Provisions
The decision follows the standard structure of an ECtHR judgment, comprising the following key sections:
* **Jurisdiction and Admissibility:** The Court reaffirms its competence to examine the case, citing the Russian Federation’s “effective control” over Crimea starting from 27 February 2014. It declares the complaints under Article 6 (fair trial) and Article 11 (freedom of assembly) admissible, while rejecting one applicant’s complaint as it was substantially the same as a previously examined matter.
* **Article 6 Assessment:** The Court concludes that the administrative proceedings were conducted by “courts” that were not “established by law,” as they were based on the illegal extension of Russian legislation to the occupied territory.
* **Article 11 Assessment:** The Court finds that the interference with the applicants’ freedom of assembly was not “prescribed by law” and reflects a broader administrative practice of suppressing pro-Ukrainian and Crimean Tatar sentiment.
* **Just Satisfaction:** The Court awards non-pecuniary damages to the applicants, ranging from EUR 6,000 to EUR 10,000 per person.
### Key Provisions for Legal Application
For practitioners and observers, the following points are the most critical:
1. **”Not Established by Law”:** The judgment confirms that any judicial proceedings conducted under Russian law in Crimea after March 2014 are inherently flawed under Article 6 of the Convention because the judicial bodies involved lack the requisite legal basis.
2. **Illegality of Russian Law in Crimea:** The Court explicitly reiterates that the extension of Russian law to Crimea is contrary to the Convention and international humanitarian law, meaning such laws cannot be invoked as a valid legal basis for restricting Convention rights.
3. **Administrative Practice:** The Court acknowledges a systemic pattern of intimidation and suppression of public gatherings in Crimea, which serves as a vital precedent for future cases involving the persecution of the Crimean Tatar population or pro-Ukrainian activists.
4. **Jurisdictional Continuity:** The ruling serves as a reminder that the Russian Federation remains liable for human rights violations committed in Crimea during the period of its effective control, even after its cessation of membership in the Council of Europe.
