CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;GRANDCHAMBER;ENG — 9 juillet 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s54AB6003 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s39E5096F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .s71604A6B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:10pt } .s2D1013D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:10pt } .s3561545 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#333333 } .sEBD403DD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:8pt } .sD37EA1D5 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:8pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sF28C8B01 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sF64A6A39 { margin:8pt 17pt 3pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; line-height:12pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s659CE682 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s36EB31BB { margin:0pt 17pt 3pt 34pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; line-height:12pt } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s695099B3 { width:10.89pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sEAB539EC { width:7.83pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s554D0A64 { width:4.78pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sC15FC45D { width:3.55pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s79ACC91 { margin:0pt 17pt 3pt 51pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; line-height:12pt } .sDF290AB { width:6.61pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sF2AC445 { margin:0pt 17pt 3pt 68.05pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; line-height:12pt } .sA440E456 { margin:0pt 17pt 3pt 85.05pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; line-height:12pt } .sBDA2B0AD { width:3.56pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sB9B66F { width:6pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s8F14C0C0 { width:0.49pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s2F436AB5 { margin:0pt 17pt 3pt 102.05pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; line-height:12pt } .s54FCDFDB { width:7.23pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sF1F52ED7 { width:4.79pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sE06A59ED { margin:0pt 17pt 3pt 119.05pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; line-height:12pt } .s554553B9 { width:3.31pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sF85D08D6 { width:3.35pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sC1D3563 { width:4.17pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s5C7BFF12 { width:4.77pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s2EC0735E { width:15.54pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sD8737946 { width:4.82pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s357A3271 { width:2.34pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sD9370BF0 { width:14.44pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s3A7D01BB { width:13.21pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s1DCFFEC { width:1.73pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s551F0519 { width:16.29pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s37C501DC { width:13.84pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s5244FA83 { width:16.27pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sDA52A5D4 { width:10.16pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sA662F6A3 { width:24.15pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s5E0725E5 { width:22.93pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sF4161FAB { width:8.93pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s831FC575 { margin:8pt 17pt 3pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:12pt } .s4637CA81 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; color:#0d0d0d } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s67CAFE05 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s92FE7353 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-19.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s64A09B87 { width:5.18pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sDD35F56 { width:9.5pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .s88FACA91 { width:214.47pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sC6A5C0A1 { width:8.17pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s2E3BD715 { width:11.51pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s86257C48 { width:1.48pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s7F5E611D { width:197.15pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s87C32567 { width:202.49pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s590A3EF4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-19.85pt } .s5E7AE2DB { width:222.47pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s852508D4 { width:229.17pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s275CCCF2 { width:5.86pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sDEFF88CA { width:197.79pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s46FE9830 { width:224.5pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s33E9A9D2 { width:10.83pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s2168BC0F { width:183.13pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s1D961DA9 { width:213.16pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s879C130D { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s2044A09A { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sC879EADF { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCBF2D345 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:8.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s8B983D37 { text-transform:none } .sC66C6FB1 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.51pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s8C49A017 { margin-left:5.65pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .s7CAC83C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:19.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s55F67FD3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCD82236A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s695E2BCF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-19.8pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s16F6432D { width:7.9pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFABD3260 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-19.8pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sFF8BF293 { width:8.05pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3CAF9CA4 { width:8.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sEB3FA797 { width:8.43pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s8508A14D { width:8.94pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s14AC500A { width:3.73pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sA44B7922 { width:9pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD051EF8 { width:3.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s20FC8552 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11.5pt } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .sE9C9855C { width:7.91pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s40DF141B { width:8.35pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sDA78FB4A { width:10.45pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s716C64EA { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase; list-style-position:inside } .s68B6BA14 { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .s68460E27 { width:21.04pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sEF02C8EA { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.11pt; font-family:Arial } .sC725E288 { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold } .s4945A37E { margin-left:37.2pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:13pt; font-family:Arial } .s101E4CBE { margin-left:-18.19pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-style:italic } .sACBC61AB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt; text-align:justify } .s22F6B68A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; list-style-position:inside } .s66053943 { text-transform:uppercase } .sA20E7FB4 { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold } .sE5273FBD { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sF9B3189B { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s8EB5F569 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .s2887878A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-19.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; list-style-position:inside } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s8C6C4B { width:7.65pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s4196892D { width:3.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sBD165FDE { width:5.39pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sBCF0EF1F { font-family:Arial; color:#262626 } .s6747EE63 { width:0.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s6959B53C { width:1.52pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sB25A0399 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:24.84pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.66pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sAC5F9EA3 { margin-left:34.55pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1pt; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s473B62F0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:13.5pt } .s4B4B41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt } .s8EEFCFFE { font-family:Arial; color:#454545 } .sF52F79D9 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial } .s58BC62F { margin-left:5.65pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sACF971B4 { font-size:13pt; text-transform:uppercase } .sD69F8C51 { margin-left:5.65pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold } .sD0489F03 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s7DEBC00A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s17E903BE { width:3.01pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sF267204E { width:5.67pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s6F7FC1B9 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s482114CD { width:34.88pt; display:inline-block } .s7FC2D9E0 { width:145.1pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block } .s37CDBE05 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sBA32C63A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid }   GRAND CHAMBER CASE OF UKRAINE AND THE NETHERLANDS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 8019/16, 43800/14, 28525/20 and 11055/22)   JUDGMENT (Merits) Art 33 • Inter-State application • Multiple, flagrant and unprecedented Convention violations by the respondent State in Ukraine • Downing of flight MH17 • Administrative practices of military attacks on Ukrainian territory and of other acts in occupied areas in Ukraine and in Russian sovereign territory • Repeated violations officially tolerated by the Russian authorities • Drawing of inferences from limited access by independent monitors and external observers • Russian law and legal acts of the “Donetsk People’s Republic” (“DPR”) and the “Lugansk People’s Republic” (“LPR”) and of the Russian occupying authorities not providing a valid legal basis for acts undertaken in Ukraine • General legal basis under international humanitarian law (“IHL”) for taking measures in occupied territory must be reflected in specific legal provisions and appropriate guidance in domestic legal order • Court’s jurisdiction ratione temporis extending no further than 16   September 2022 when the respondent State ceased to be a High Contracting Party to the Convention Art   36 • Twenty-six High Contracting Parties intervening as third parties Art 35 § 1 • New complaints in application no.   11055/22 under Art   3, 8, 11, 13 and 14, and Art   2 P1 declared admissible Art 1 • Respondent State’s jurisdiction over areas in eastern Ukraine under separatist control from 26   January 2022 to 16   September 2022 • Respondent State’s jurisdiction over areas under control of Russian armed forces after the invasion on 24   February 2022 • Effective control exercised by the respondent State over such territory by virtue of its control by the Russian armed forces after the invasion • Respondent State’s jurisdiction for complaints concerning military attacks by separatists or the Russian armed forces on Ukrainian territory from 2014 to 2022 • Reality of extensive, strategically planned military attacks carried out with deliberate intention and indisputable effect of assuming authority and control, falling short of effective control, over areas, infrastructure and people in Ukraine wholly at odds with any notion of chaos • Degree of responsibility assumed by the respondent State over individuals affected by such attacks • Russian Federation’s exercise of authority and control over such individuals • Acts and omissions of the Russian armed forces and the armed separatists of the DPR and the LPR attributable to the Russian Federation • Respondent State’s jurisdiction for its authorities’ actions in Russian sovereign territory Art 32 • Importance of historical context of the Council of Europe • Nature and scale of violence and statements concerning Ukraine’s very right to exist representing a threat to peaceful co-existence within Europe • Respondent State’s disrespect for Council of Europe’s fundamental values • Relationship between Convention and IHL • Duty of harmonious interpretation so far as possible • Court may interpret and assess compliance with IHL where necessary to carry out its role Art 2 (substantive) • Downing of flight MH17 • Breach of the respondent State’s negative and positive obligations • Unjustified intentional use of force resulting in the downing of the flight and the deprivation of the lives of the civilians on board • Launching of missile from Buk-TELAR in eastern Ukraine in breach of IHL • Launching of missile not lawful act of war and not justified under Art   2 §   2 • Existence of a real and immediate risk to life • Respondent State’s failure to take preventive measures to significantly reduce or eliminate risk posed by Buk-TELAR to civilians travelling in civilian aircraft over eastern Ukraine Art 2 (procedural) • Downing of flight MH17 • Failure to conduct an effective investigation • Piecemeal inquiries with aim of showing lack of Russian involvement and deflecting responsibility onto Ukraine • Disclosure of inaccurate and fabricated information • Failure to cooperate effectively with the investigation of the international joint investigation team (“JIT”) • Obstructive approach of Russian Federation to attempts to elucidate cause and circumstances of crash • Refusal to execute requests for legal assistance • Material impact of failure to cooperate on ability of JIT to conclude its investigation into involvement of Russian armed forces and senior Russian politicians Art 13 (+ Art 2) • Downing of flight MH17 • Lack of access to effective remedies in the respondent State for the relatives of the victims of the flight capable of establishing liability of State officials and awarding compensation Art 3 (substantive) • Downing of flight MH17 • Continuing profound suffering of the next of kin of the victims of the flight amounting to inhuman treatment Art 2 and 3 (substantive) • Art 1 P1 • Art 8 • Administrative practice of intense and sustained military attacks throughout Ukrainian territory conducted in breach of IHL • Breach of the respondent State’s negative and positive obligations • Indiscriminate and disproportionate military attacks and attacks directed at residential areas and civilian infrastructure resulting in widespread death, injuries, suffering and damage to property and homes • Respondent State’s failure to protect civilian lives and well-being when conducting sieges Art 2 (substantive) • Administrative practice of extrajudicial killing of civilians and Ukrainian military personnel hors de combat in occupied territory in Ukraine Art 3 (substantive) • Administrative practice of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment in occupied territory in Ukraine • Torture constituting a coordinated State policy of the Russian Federation in respect of Ukrainian civilians and prisoners of wars (“POWs”) • Widespread and systemic use of rape and sexual violence • Use of rape as a weapon of war an act of extreme atrocity amounting to torture • Inadequate conditions of detention • Suffering of family members of those abducted or disappeared after 24   February 2022 in a context of mass arbitrary detentions and systematic abuse of detainees amounting to inhuman treatment Art 4 § 2 • Administrative practice of forced labour in occupied territory in Ukraine Art 5 • Administrative practice of unlawful and arbitrary detention of civilians, without any legal basis and without basic procedural safeguards, in occupied territory in Ukraine Art 8 • Administrative practice of unjustified transfer and displacement of civilians in occupied territory in Ukraine and unjustified application of filtration measures • Displacement of civilians by Russian occupying authorities did not qualify as lawful evacuation under IHL • Environment of coercion, fear, violence and terror in Ukraine on account of mass human rights violations by Russian Federation substantially responsible for civilians’ decision to flee • Displacement of such civilians amounted to forced displacement Art 9 • Administrative practice in occupied territory in Ukraine of intimidation, harassment, and persecution of religious groups, aside from the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate (“UOC-MP”) • Abduction, ill-treatment and killing of religious leaders • Obligation on religious groups to register • Application of extremism laws against religious communities other than UOC-MP to ban religious organisations, seize religious premises and material and prevent religious worship Art 10 • Administrative practice in occupied territory in Ukraine of unjustified interference with freedom to receive and impart information and ideas • Intimidation, detention, ill-treatment and killing of journalists • Registration and accreditation obligations on media outlets and journalists • Application of purported laws prohibiting and penalising dissemination of information in support of Ukraine including on social media • Application of terrorism and extremism laws • Excessive and arbitrary effects of measures blocking access to websites and broadcasters in occupied territory Art 11 • Administrative practice of unjustified interference with right to peaceful assembly • Forcible dispersal of peaceful protests in occupied territory in Ukraine in March and April 2022 Art 1 P1 • Art 8 • Administrative practice of destruction, looting and expropriation without compensation of the property of civilians and private enterprises and looting of homes and personal possessions, in occupied territory in Ukraine Art 2 P1 • Administrative practice in occupied territory in Ukraine of suppression of Ukrainian language in schools and of indoctrination in education • Failure to provide for teaching in Ukrainian language amounted to denial of substance of right to education • Views of parents in occupied territory on the history and status of Ukraine attained level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance to be considered “convictions” • Arrangements made after 24   February 2022 for advancing narrative of occupying Power in schools pursued aim of indoctrination Art 3 (substantive) • Art 5 • Art 8 • Administrative practice of transfer to Russia, and in many cases the adoption there, of Ukrainian children • Overwhelming evidence from shortly before the 2022 invasion of systemic practice of transferring children to Russia and facilitating their adoption there • Continuous sequence of acts between 2014 and 2022 demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt • Russian authorities’ failure to take measures to secure the children’s return and excessive difficulties faced by caregivers seeking reunification • Transfers did not qualify as lawful evacuations under IHL • Automatic imposition of Russian nationality in breach of IHL facilitated adoption of children in Russia • Children’s treatment attained threshold of severity required to engage Art   3 • Children placed in care of hostile occupying State potentially indefinitely and in defiance of international law • Traumatising effect of military operations themselves and separation from caregivers particularly given uncertainty and fear of permanent and forcible separation • Evidence of ill-treatment of some children after their relocation • In exceptional circumstances of case children also deprived of their liberty and security Art 14 (+ Art 2, 3, 4 § 2, 5, 8, 9, 10, and 11, and Art 1 and 2 P1) • Respondent State’s failure to secure Convention rights and freedoms in occupied territory in Ukraine without discrimination on the grounds of political opinion and national origin Art 13 (+ Art 2, 3, 4 § 2, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 14, and Art 1 and 2 P1) • Failure to investigate credible allegations of administrative practices or to provide any redress Art 38 • Non-compliance with obligation to furnish all necessary facilities for examination of case • Deplorable failure of respondent State to abide by fundamental duty of cooperation with Court inevitably affected Court’s examination of case Art 46 • Execution of judgment • Individual measures to be taken without delay • Respondent State to release or safely return all persons deprived of their liberty on Ukrainian territory under occupation by the Russian and Russian-controlled forces in breach of Art   5 before 16   September 2022 and still in the Russian authorities’ custody • Respondent State to cooperate in establishing an international and independent mechanism to secure, in the children’s best interests, the identification of all children transferred from Ukraine to Russia and Russian-controlled territory before 16   September 2022, the restoration of contact and the safe reunification of those children with their surviving family members or legal guardians Art 41 • Just satisfaction • Adjourned • Importance of having due regard to other international developments when making any future award for just satisfaction • Application no.   28525/20 disjoined from remainder of the case for purposes of further proceedings only   Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court.   STRASBOURG 9 July 2025   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. Table of Contents PROCEDURE I.   INTRODUCTION II.   APPLICATION NOS. 8019/16, 43800/14 AND 28525/20 III.   THE LODGING OF APPLICATION NO. 11055/22 IV.   PROCEEDINGS IN RESPECT OF ALL FOUR APPLICATIONS THE FACTS I.   INTRODUCTION II.   OVERVIEW A.   Chronology of the conflict B.   International developments following 24 February 2022 1.   Council of Europe 2.   United Nations (UN) 3.   International Courts (a)   International Court of Justice (b)   International Criminal Court 4.   Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) 5.   European Union (EU) C.   Investigations and proceedings concerning the downing of flight MH17 RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE THE LAW I.   PARTICIPATION OF THE RESPONDENT STATE II.   TERMINOLOGY III.   THIRD-PARTY INTERVENERS A.   The interveners B.   The submissions of the intervening Governments IV.   PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS A.   Introduction B.   Historical context C.   The present conflict D.   Conclusions V.   THE TEMPORAL JURISDICTION OF THE COURT A.   The parties’ submissions 1.   The applicant Ukrainian Government 2.   The respondent Government B.   The Court’s assessment VI.   APPROACH TO EVIDENCE A.   Evidence in the case B.   The burden of proof and the drawing of inferences C.   The Court’s approach to new categories of evidence 1.   Introduction 2.   The findings of the Commission of Inquiry 3.   The reports by the OSCE missions of experts 4.   Other reports VII.   ARTICLE 1 JURISDICTION AND ATTRIBUTION A.   The complaints 1.   Complaints in respect of which jurisdiction has been established 2.   Complaints in respect of which jurisdiction now falls to be determined B.   The parties’ submissions 1.   The applicant Ukrainian Government 2.   The respondent Government 3.   Third-party submissions (a)   Governments (i)   Introduction (ii)   Submissions (α)   Common pleading of all twenty-six Governments (β)   Further submissions of Belgium, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Slovakia and Spain, partially joined by Poland (γ)   Czech Republic, Lithuania and Poland (δ)   France (ε)   Latvia (στ)   Poland (ζ)   United Kingdom (iii)   Responses to written and oral questions, received in writing after the hearing (α)   Joint response of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden (β)   Belgium and the Czech Republic (γ)   Croatia (δ)   Estonia (ε)   Germany and Portugal (στ)   Latvia (ζ)   The Netherlands (η)   Poland (θ)   Romania (ι)   Spain (b)   Geneva Academy (c)   Human Rights Law Centre C.   The Court’s assessment 1.   Continuing jurisdiction in the “DPR” and the “LPR” on the basis of effective control 2.   Jurisdiction in respect of the complaints in application no.   11055/22 (a)   Events in the Russian Federation (b)   Events in Ukraine 3.   Jurisdiction in respect of military attacks (a)   Introduction (b)   The principles governing extraterritorial jurisdiction in the case of armed conflict and the Court’s recent approach (c)   Jurisdiction in respect of military attacks in 2014-2022 in the present case 4.   Attribution 5.   Conclusion VIII.   RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE CONVENTION AND INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW A.   Introduction B.   The parties’ submissions 1.   The applicant Ukrainian Government 2.   The applicant Dutch Government 3.   The respondent Government 4.   Third-party submissions (a)   Governments (i)   Common pleading of all twenty-six Governments (ii)   Further submissions of Belgium, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, Slovakia and Spain (iii)   Further separate submissions (α)   Croatia (β)   France (γ)   Poland (δ)   United Kingdom (b)   Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights (c)   The Human Rights Law Centre C.   The Court’s assessment 1.   General principles 2.   Application of the general principles to the facts of the case IX.   ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 2 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION IN RESPECT OF THE DOWNING OF FLIGHT MH17 A.   Alleged substantive violation of Article 2 of the Convention 1.   The parties’ submissions (a)   The applicant Dutch Government (i)   The obligation to protect life (ii)   The prohibition of intentional deprivation of life (iii)   International humanitarian law (b)   The respondent Government (c)   The third-party interveners 2.   The Court’s assessment (a)   General principles (b)   Application of the general principles to the facts of the case B.   Alleged procedural violation of Article 2 of the Convention 1.   The parties’ submissions (a)   The applicant Dutch Government (i)   The absence of an effective official investigation (ii)   The failure to cooperate effectively (b)   The respondent Government (c)   The third-party interveners 2.   The Court’s assessment (a)   General principles (b)   Application of the general principles to the facts of the case (i)   Obligation to conduct an effective investigation (ii)   Obligation to cooperate effectively with the JIT (iii)   Conclusion C.   Alleged violation of Article 13 of the Convention, taken together with Article 2 1.   The parties’ submissions (a)   The applicant Dutch Government (b)   The respondent Government 2.   The Court’s assessment (a)   General principles (b)   Application of the general principles to the facts of the case X.   ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 3 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION IN RESPECT OF THE DOWNING OF FLIGHT MH17 A.   Alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention 1.   The parties’ submissions (a)   The applicant Dutch Government (b)   The respondent Government 2.   The third-party interveners 3.   The Court’s assessment (a)   Relevant general principles and the Court’s approach in previous comparable cases (b)   Application of the above principles to the facts of the present case B.   Alleged violation of Article 13 of the Convention XI.   ADMISSIBILITY OF APPLICATION NO. 11055/22 A.   The parties’ submissions B.   The Court’s assessment 1.   Identification of new complaints 2.   Compliance with Article 35 § 1 of the Convention 3.   Evidential threshold 4.   Conclusion XII.   THE APPROACH TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICES ALLEGED A.   The identification of the administrative practices B.   Evidence for an administrative practice 1.   Repetition of acts 2.   Official tolerance C.   “Lawfulness” XIII.   ALLEGED ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE OF UNLAWFUL MILITARY ATTACKS AGAINST CIVILIANS AND CIVILIAN OBJECTS A.   The complaints B.   The parties’ submissions 1.   The applicant Ukrainian Government 2.   The respondent Government C.   Summary of the relevant evidence D.   The Court’s assessment 1.   General principles 2.   Application of the general principles to the facts of the case XIV.   ALLEGED ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICES IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 2, 3, 4 § 2 AND 5 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Summary of relevant evidence 1.   The period from spring 2014 to January 2022 2.   The period from 24 February 2022 (a)   Reports of the Commission of Inquiry (i)   Summary executions (ii)   Attacks against civilians on the move (iii)   Deprivation of liberty (iv)   Ill-treatment in detention and conditions of detention (v)   Ill-treatment outside detention facilities (vi)   Forced labour (b)   OHCHR reports (i)   “The situation of human rights in Ukraine in the context of the armed attack by the Russian Federation, 24   February to 15 May 2022”, report of 29 June 2022 (ii)   “Human rights situation in Ukraine between 1 February and 31 July 2022”, report of 27 September 2022 (iii)   “Killings of civilians: summary executions and attacks on individual civilians in Kyiv, Chernihiv, and Sumy regions in the context of the Russian Federation’s armed attack against Ukraine between 24 February and 31   October 2022”, thematic report of 7 December 2022 (iv)   “Human rights situation in Ukraine between 1 August 2022 and 31 January 2023”, report of 24 March 2023 (v)   “Treatment of prisoners of war and persons hors de combat in the context of the armed attack by the Russian Federation against Ukraine: 24 February 2022 to 23   February 2023”, thematic report of 24 March 2023 (vi)   “Detention of civilians in the context of the armed attack by the Russian Federation against Ukraine between 24   February 2022 – 23 May 2023”, thematic report of 27   June 2023 (vii)   “Human rights situation in Ukraine between 1   February to 31 July 2023”, report of 4 October 2023 (viii)   “Human rights situation during the Russian occupation of territory of Ukraine and its aftermath between 24 February 2022 – 31 December 2023”, report of 19 March 2024 (ix)   “Treatment of prisoners of war and update on the human rights situation in Ukraine between 1 June 2024 and 31   August 2024”, report of 1 October 2024 (c)   The OSCE Moscow Mechanism and ODIHR reports (d)   Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights (e)   Other sources B.   Article 2 of the Convention 1.   The complaint 2.   The parties’ submissions (a)   The applicant Ukrainian Government (b)   The respondent Government 3.   The Court’s assessment (a)   General principles (b)   Application of the general principles to the facts of the case C.   Article 3 of the Convention 1.   The complaint 2.   The parties’ submissions (a)   The applicant Ukrainian Government (b)   The respondent Government 3.   The Court’s assessment (a)   General principles (b)   Application of the general principles to the facts of the case D.   Article 4 § 2 of the Convention 1.   The complaint 2.   The parties’ submissions (a)   The applicant Ukrainian Government (b)   The respondent Government 3.   The Court’s assessment (a)   General principles (b)   Application of the general principles to the facts of the case E.   Article 5 of the Convention 1.   The complaint 2.   The parties’ submissions (a)   The applicant Ukrainian Government (b)   The respondent Government 3.   The Court’s assessment (a)   General principles (b)   Application of the general principles to the facts of the case XV.   ALLEGED ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION A.   The complaint B.   The parties’ submissions 1.   The applicant Ukrainian Government 2.   The respondent Government C.   Summary of the relevant evidence 1.   Transfer and displacement of civilians 2.   Filtration measures D.   The Court’s assessment 1.   General principles 2.   Application of the above principles to the facts of the present case (a)   Transfer and displacement of civilians (i)   Introduction (ii)   Transfer of detainees in occupied territory (iii)   Displacement of civilians at liberty in occupied territory (α)   Has there been an interference? (β)   Was the interference justified under Article 8 § 2 (iv)   Conclusion in respect of the transfer and displacement of civilians (b)   Filtration measures (c)   Conclusion XVI.   ALLEGED ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 9 OF THE CONVENTION A.   The complaint B.   The parties’ submissions 1.   The applicant Ukrainian Government 2.   The respondent Government C.   Summary of the relevant evidence D.   The Court’s assessment 1.   General principles 2.   Application of the above principles to the facts of the present case XVII.   ALLEGED ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 10 OF THE CONVENTION A.   The complaint B.   The parties’ submissions 1.   The applicant Ukrainian Government 2.   The respondent Government C.   Summary of the relevant evidence D.   The Court’s assessment 1.   General principles 2.   Application of the general principles to the facts of the present case XVIII.   ALLEGED ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 11 OF THE CONVENTION A.   The complaint B.   The parties’ submissions 1.   The applicant Ukrainian Government 2.   The respondent Government C.   Summary of the relevant evidence D.   The Court’s assessment 1.   General principles 2.   Application of the above principles to the facts of the present case XIX.   ALLEGED ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1 TO THE CONVENTION A.   The complaint B.   The parties’ submissions 1.   The applicant Ukrainian Government 2.   The respondent Government C.   Summary of the relevant evidence D.   The Court’s assessment 1.   General principles 2.   Application of the above principles to the   facts of the present   case XX.   ALLEGED ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 2 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1 TO THE CONVENTION A.   The complaint B.   The parties’ submissions 1.   The applicant Ukrainian Government 2.   The respondent Government C.   Summary of the relevant evidence D.   The Court’s assessment 1.   General principles 2.   Application of the general principles to the facts of the case XXI.   ALLEGED ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE OF ABDUCTION AND TRANSFER OF CHILDREN IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 3, 5 AND 8 OF THE CONVENTION AND ARTICLE 2 OF PROTOCOL NO. 4 TO THE CONVENTION A.   The complaint B.   The parties’ submissions 1.   The applicant Ukrainian Government 2.   The respondent Government C.   Summary of the relevant evidence 1.   Evidence relating to the relocation of children 2.   Evidence of the acknowledged activities of the respondent State in respect of the relocation of children D.   The Court’s assessment 1.   General principles 2.   Application of the general principles to the facts of the case XXII.   ALLEGED ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONVENTION A.   The complaint B.   The parties’ submissions 1.   The applicant Ukrainian Government 2.   The respondent Government C.   The Court’s assessment XXIII.   OFFICIAL TOLERANCE AND ALLEGED ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Introduction B.   The parties’ submissions 1.   The applicant Ukrainian Government 2.   The respondent Government C.   The Court’s assessment 1.   General principles 2.   Application of the general principles to the facts of the present case (a)   Official tolerance (b)   Article 13 of the Convention XXIV.   CONCLUDING REMARKS XXV.   ARTICLE 38 OF THE CONVENTION A.   The parties’ submissions 1.   The applicant Ukrainian Government 2.   The applicant Dutch Government B.   The Court’s assessment XXVI.   APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 AND 46 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Article 46 of the Convention B.   Article 41 of the Convention OPERATIVE PROVISIONS   In the case of Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights sitting as a Grand Chamber composed of:   Mattias Guyomar,   Síofra O’Leary,   Arnfinn Bårdsen,   Ioannis Ktistakis,   Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer,   Krzysztof Wojtyczek,   Faris Vehabović,   Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström,   Georgios A. Serghides,   Tim Eicke,   Lətif Hüseynov,   Jovan Ilievski,   Jolien Schukking,   Erik Wennerström,   Anja Seibert-Fohr,   Diana Sârcu,   Mykola Gnatovskyy , judges , and Abel Campos, Deputy Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 12-13 June 2024 and 4 June 2025, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the latter date: PROCEDURE INTRODUCTION 1.     The present case originated in four separate applications (nos.   20958/14, 43800/14, 42410/15 and 11055/22) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 33 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by the Government of Ukraine (“the applicant Ukrainian Government”) on 13 March and 13 June 2014, 26 August 2015 and 28 February 2022 respectively; and an application (no. 28525/20) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 33 of the Convention by the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands (“the applicant Dutch Government”) on 10 July 2020. The applicant Ukrainian Government alleged in the main that the Russian Federation had been responsible for administrative practices in breach of Articles 2, 3, 4 § 2, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13 and 14 of the Convention, Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No. 1 and Articles   2 and 3 of Protocol No. 4 in the context of the conflict in Ukraine which began in 2014 and whose scale and territorial reach greatly increased after the 2022 invasion. The applicant Dutch Government alleged that the Russian Federation had been responsible for a violation of Articles 2, 3 and 13 of the Convention on account of the downing of flight MH17 over Ukraine on 17   July 2014. 2.     At the present stage of the proceedings, the applicant Ukrainian Government were represented by Ms M. Sokorenko, of the Ministry of Justice. The applicant Dutch Government were represented by their Agent, Ms B. Koopman, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The respondent Government did not take part in the proceedings (see paragraphs 21, 27 and 139-144 below). APPLICATION NOS. 8019/16, 43800/14 AND 28525/20 3.     On 9 February and 29 November 2016, a Chamber of the Third Section, to which application nos. 20958/14 and 42410/15 had been allocated, divided the applications into four separate cases. Complaints concerning events in Crimea remained registered under the above case numbers, while the complaints concerning events in eastern Ukraine were given new application nos. 8019/16 and 70856/16 respectively. On 11 June 2018, the Grand Chamber decided to join the two applications and renamed the case Ukraine   v. Russia (re Eastern Ukraine) , no. 8019/16. The complaints concerning events in Crimea were examined separately (see Ukraine v.   Russia (re   Crimea) [GC], nos. 20958/14 and 38334/18, 25 June 2024). 4 .     On 27 November 2020 the Grand Chamber decided to join to Ukraine v. Russia (re Eastern Ukraine) , no. 8019/16, previously relinquished and pending before it, applications nos. 43800/14 and 28525/20, both pending before the First Section of the Court (see Burmych and Others v. Ukraine (striking out) [GC], nos. 46852/13 et al, §   213, 12 October 2017) in accordance with Rules 42 § 1 and 71 § 1 of the Rules of Court and in the interests of the efficient administration of justice. The joined case was named Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia . 5 .     A hearing on the admissibility of the applications was held on 26   January 2022. Representatives of all three Governments participated in the hearing and made oral submissions before the Court (see Ukraine and the Netherlands v.   Russia (dec.) [GC], nos. 8019/16 and 2 others, §   33, 30   November 2022). 6 .     Further details of the procedure in respect of the case up to the adoption of the Court’s admissibility decision on 30 November 2022 are set out in the Court’s admissibility decision (ibid., §§ 1-40). 7 .     In its decision of 30 November 2022, delivered on 25 January 2023, the Grand Chamber (composed of judges Síofra O’Leary, President, Georges Ravarani, Marko Bošnjak, Pere Pastor Vilanova, Ganna Yudkivska, Krzysztof Wojtyczek, Faris Vehabović, Iulia Antoanella Motoc, Jon Fridrik Kjølbro, Yonko Grozev, Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, Tim Eicke, Lətif Hüseynov, Jovan Ilievski, Jolien Schukking, Erik Wennerström and Anja Seibert-Fohr, and also of Søren Prebensen, Deputy Grand Chamber Registrar), declared the applications partly admissible (see the operative part of the Court’s decision). It joined to the merits the objection raised by the respondent Government regarding whether the applicant Ukrainian Government’s complaints of administrative practices of shelling in violation of