Crimean Precedent - Crimeahumanrights

The largest database of analytical materials on the occupation of Crimea

More about us

Materials

All

Cases

Instructions for action

World experience

Analytics

Legal system

Thematic Reviews

Clear all filters

Protected: 4.1. Forced Conscription Policy in the Occupied Territory

There is no excerpt because this is a protected post.

REPORT ON THE RESULTS of the study of the policy of the Russian Federation on forcible change of dem...

Crimean Precedent. Forced Displacement from Crimea and its Human Rights Aspects

Report “Crimean Precedent. Forced Displacement from Crimea and its Human Rights Aspects” Following the occupation, and shortly afterwards the annexation of the Crimean peninsula, a part of Ukraine’s territory, by the Russian Federation in 2014, many residents of Crimea[1] left the peninsula for mainland Ukraine and abroad. Many left because of persecution and fear of […]

Special issue Forcible Expulsion of the Civilian Population from the Occupied Territory by Russia

Crimea beyond rules. Special issue. Forcible Expulsion of the Civilian Population from the Occupied Territory by Russia The Crimean events in February-March 2014 created a special legal situation. On the one hand, the international community did not recognize the legality of the annexation of Crimea – the territory of the peninsula is considered like occupied. […]

Issue №1 The right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose residence

Crimea beyond rules. Issue № 1. The right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose residence In the XXI century the occupation and illegal annexation of the Crimean Peninsula in March 2014 has become first after the Second World War largest precedent of massive violation of fundamental human rights and freedoms. As a result […]

Civil Code of Ukraine

Civil Code of Ukraine Code entered into force on 1.01.2004. In addition to the general aspects of freedom of movement, the Civil Code provides that a person can not be expelled from his place of residence, if the access to it is not prohibited by law (Art. 313). According to Art. 29 of the Civil […]

The consistent appeal against decisions of the authorities violating the freedom of movement in the national courts is a criterium of admissibility of application before the European Court.

The practice of the European Court in cases Bolat v. Russia (Judgment of 05/10/2006; App. No. 14139/03), Nolan and K. v. Russia (Judgement of 12 February 2009; App. No. 2512/04), and in particular, the decision of the Grand Chamber on admissibility Demopoulos and others v. Turkey (Decision of 01/03/2010; Application nos. 46113/99, 3843/02, 13751/02, 13466/03, […]

Regarding the possibility of application of Article 3 of Protocol №4 (prohibition of expulsion of nationals) and Article 1 of the Protocol №7 (procedural safeguards relating to expulsion of aliens) in the Crimean cases.

It shall be recalled that the UN General Assembly in its resolution A / RES / 68/262 of 27 March 2014 on the territorial integrity of Ukraine called upon all States, international organizations and specialized agencies not to recognize the change in the status of Crimea and Sevastopol through the referendum held on March 16 […]

Citizens of Ukraine who can not go to the mainland Ukraine in virtue of legal restrictions or the use of discretionary powers of the State Border Service employees.

The freedom of movement can also be violated by the Ukrainian authorities. For instance, the penalty for attempting to cross the checkpoints in case of loss of documents during the stay in Crimea constitutes an interference with freedom of movement. Such penalty is imposed not for the fact of loss of documents but for the […]

Citizens of Ukraine, who expressed, in accordance with Article 4 of Fedederal Constitutional Law No6 “their desire to retain their other existing citizenship and (or) citizenship of their minor children or remain without citizenship” are now unsuccessfully trying to get Russian residence permit.

In this case, the interference with freedom of movement may be a requirement of the Russian authorities to obtain a residence permit (under the threat of restriction of rights or even expulsion) as well as the refusal to issue such a document. In this example, the statement remains true that such intervention is not […]

Case of the leaders of the Crimean Tatar National Movement

Mustafa Dzhemilev and Refat Chubarov, the leaders of the Crimean Tatar National Movement, were banned from entering the Crimea by the Russian government. Mustafa Dzhemilev was notiﬁed of the ban on entry to Crimea at his departure from the territory of the peninsula and Refat Chubarov – at the moment when he attempted to enter […]

Case of Ismet Yüksel

Ismet Yüksel, an ethnic Crimean Tatar, a Turkish national, had a permanent residence permit in Crimea, where his family lived and where he was running the business, but in August 2014 he was not admitted to the territory of Crimea, and received a ban on entry into the territory of the Russian Federation for a […]