No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Ukr. v. Russ. (Re Crimea) (Eur. Ct. H.R.)
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 February 2025
Extract
On June 25, 2024, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR, or the Court) delivered a unanimous 346-page judgment in Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea). The Court found Russia responsible for the administrative practice of violations of eleven substantive articles of the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention) (Articles 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, and 18) as well as Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No. 1, and Article 2 of Protocol No. 4, following Russia's illegal annexation of the peninsula in 2014. These violations, among others, concerned enforced disappearances, ill-treatment, restrictions on Ukrainian media and language education, persecution of Ukrainian and Crimean Tatar opponents of the Russian occupation and expropriation without compensation of property from civilians and private enterprises in the peninsula. The judgment represents a major victory for Ukraine, underscoring that Russia's human rights violations in Crimea form a systematic pattern, particularly highlighting the campaign of repression against the opponents of Russian rule. At the same time, the judgment is significant as it features one of the most consequential considerations of international humanitarian law (IHL) for the interpretation and application of the Convention, thereby positioning the latter in a wider framework of public international law.
- Type
- International Legal Documents
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of American Society of International Law
References
ENDNOTES
1 Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea), App. Nos. 20958/14 and 38334/18 (June 25, 2024), https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-235139 [hereinafter Judgment].
2 The Court found Russia responsible for the violation of Article 18 in conjunction with Articles 5, 6, 8, 10, and 11 of the Convention “on account of an ongoing administrative practice of restricting ‘Ukrainian political prisoners'’ rights and freedoms as enshrined in the Convention in Crimea for an ulterior purpose not prescribed by the Convention.” Judgment, ¶ 1382. On this point, see, Kanstantsin Dzehtsiarou, Ukraine v Russia (re Crimea): the European Court of Human Rights Goes ‘All-in’, EJIL:Talk! (June 27, 2024), https://www.ejiltalk.org/ukraine-v-russia-re-crimea-the-european-court-of-human-rights-goes-all-in/.
3 See in detail Júlia Miklasová, Secession in International Law with a Special Reference to the Post-Soviet Space 407–437 (2024).
4 G.A. Res. 68/262, U.N. Doc. A/RES/68/262, ¶ 6 (Mar. 27, 2014).
5 Council Eur. Cmte. Ministers, Cessation of the Membership of the Russian Federation to the Council of Europe, Res. CM/Res (2022)2 (Mar. 16, 2022).
6 Eur. Ct. H.R., Consequences of the Cessation of Membership of the Russian Federation to the Council of Europe in Light of Article 58 of the European Convention on Human Rights, ¶ 1 (Mar. 22, 2022).
7 Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea), App. Nos. 20958/14 and 38334/18, ¶¶ 335, 349 (Dec. 16, 2020), https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-207622 [hereinafter Admissibility Decision]. Regarding the second application, the Court found that this finding continued “to be valid after 26 August 2015.” Judgment, ¶ 873.
8 Judgment, ¶ 854.
9 Id. ¶¶ 854, 908–909.
10 Id. ¶ 929.
11 Id. ¶ 930.
12 Id. ¶ 932.
13 Id. ¶ 931. The Court held that it would “consider the rules of IHL, in so far as relied on by the applicant Government, when considering the compatibility of an alleged administrative practice with the Convention right(s) in question.” Id. ¶ 918. See, Hassan v. the United Kingdom, App. No. 29750/09, ¶ 107 (Sep. 16, 2014), https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre?i=001-146501.
14 Judgment, ¶¶ 938–939.
15 Id. ¶ 946.
16 Id. ¶ 1019. Nevertheless, regarding several provisions of the Convention, the Court examined and ultimately found unfulfilled other requirements of the permissibility of interferences, including the issue of the legitimate aim, necessity, and proportionality.
17 Id. ¶ 918. Marko Milanovic, Some Additional Comments on the ECtHR Crimea Judgment: Occupation, Sovereignty, Editorials and “Law”, EJIL:Talk! (June 27, 2024), https://www.ejiltalk.org/some-additional-comments-on-the-ecthr-crimea-judgment-occupation-sovereignty-and-law. Andreas Piperides, Three Aspects of the Relationship Between IHL and the Convention in Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea), Opinio Juris (July 25, 2024), https://opiniojuris.org/2024/07/25/three-aspects-of-the-relationship-between-ihl-and-the-convention-in-ukraine-v-russia-re-crimea.
18 Judgment, ¶ 919.
19 Milanovic, supra note 17.
20 Júlia Miklasová, Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea): Article 6 ECHR in the Context of Russia's Annexation and Implications for Ukrainian Sovereignty, Strasbourg Observers (July 3, 2024), https://strasbourgobservers.com/2024/07/03/ukraine-v-russia-re-crimea-article-6-echr-in-the-context-of-russias-annexation-and-implications-for-ukrainian-sovereignty/. Milanovic, supra note 17.
21 Dzehtsiarou, supra note 2. Milanovic, supra note 17.
22 Milanovic, supra note 17 (emphasis in the original).
23 Dzehtsiarou, supra note 2. Piperides, supra note 17. For the criticism of this flexible approach, see, Miklasová, supra note 3, 295–305 and 386–388.
24 Judgment, ¶ 944. Miklasová, supra note 20.
25 Miklasová, supra note 20.
26 Id.
27 Admissibility Decision, ¶ 348, and see ¶ 244.
28 Dzehtsiarou, supra note 2.
29 Id.
30 See Press Release, Eur. Ct. Hum. Rts., Multiple Violations in Case Brought by Ukraine against Russia Concerning Crimea, ECHR 166 (June 25, 2024), https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=003-7981802-11134245.