CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 25 novembre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .s3BF0B6C7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .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 } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s22755BB4 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .s46391408 { width:42.22pt; display:inline-block } .s4A6C3E8D { width:155.1pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s1721E4C5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD00444C6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s2F3EB0E4 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .sBAADFE8C { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top }     FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 64825/16 Oleksiy Yevgeniyovych LAKTIONOV against Russia and Ukraine and 37 other applications (see list appended)   The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 25   November 2025 as a Committee composed of:   Faris Vehabović, President ,   Lorraine Schembri Orland,   Anne Louise Bormann, judges , and Uğur Erdal, Acting Deputy Section Registrar , Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1.     A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. The circumstances of the case Events giving rise to the applications 2.     The applicants’ complaints emanated from the armed conflict in eastern Ukraine. A detailed summary of that conflict can be found in Ukraine and   the   Netherlands v. Russia [GC], nos. 8019/16 and 3 others, §§ 35 ‑ 79, 9   July 2025. 3.     The applicants in applications listed under nos. 1, 8, 13, 19, 24, 27 and   30-38 in the appended table stated that they were being held in pre ‑ trial detention or serving their prison sentences in various penitentiary institutions in the Donetsk region which have been outside of the control of the Ukrainian Government since 2014. 4.     Operations of the Ukrainian postal service Ukrposhta on the territories of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions outside the control of the Government have been suspended since July 2014 (see Tsezar and Others v. Ukraine , nos.   73590/14 and 6 others, § 9, 13 February 2018). 5.     The applicants in the remaining 23 applications stated that they had sustained injuries and damage to property and, in some of the applications, they alleged that their relatives had been killed as a result of shelling carried out in the village of Stanytsya Luhanska, the Luhansk region, between 2014 and 2017. 6.     On 26 February 2022 Russian forces occupied Stanytsya Luhanska. Consequently, Ukrposhta discontinued its services in Stanytsya Luhanska. Withdrawal of the applicants’ representatives 7.     The applicants were initially represented by Ms G. Ovdiienko and   Ms   O. Ashchenko, lawyers working for the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group, a Ukrainian NGO. On 23 August 2018 Ms O. Ashchenko informed the Court that she would no longer be acting as the representative of the applicants in the proceedings before the Court. On 20 August 2024 Ms   G. Ovdiienko also informed the Court of her intention to withdraw from representing the applicants before the Court. 8.     Following Ms Ashchenko’s withdrawal, the Court made attempts to contact the applicants represented by her. Most of the letters sent to the applicants by the Court remained unanswered, and some letters were returned undelivered. 9.     After Ms G. Ovdiienko withdrew from representing the applicants, on 6   February 2025 the Court contacted the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group with a view to clarifying whether another lawyer intended to take over the representation of the applicants in these cases. 10.     On 1 July 2025 the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group informed the Court that contact with these applicants had been lost due to the fact that most of them were living in the territories outside of the Government’s control. COMPLAINTS 11.     In respect of their allegations summarised above, the applicants relied on Articles 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1 to the Convention. THE LAW 12.     Having regard to the similar subject matter and procedural history of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. 13.     The Court notes that the applicants’ application forms do not contain any contact information other than their postal addresses in the territories of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions which are outside of the Ukrainian Government’s control and in which, as explained above, the Ukrainian postal service Ukrposhta suspended its operations (see also Yuldashev and Others v.   Russia and Ukraine (dec.), no. 35139/14 et al., § 12, 5 May 2020). Therefore, after the withdrawal of the applicants’ representatives, the Court became unable to communicate with the applicants and the attempts made by the Court to establish direct contact with the applicants were unsuccessful. 14.     The Court also notes that, neither before nor after the withdrawal of their representatives did the applicants contact the Court directly. They also did not appoint another representative to act on their behalf before the Court. It must be stressed in this connection that Rule 47 § 7 of the Rules of Court requires applicants to keep the Court informed of any change of their addresses and of all circumstances relevant to their application. The Court considers that the fluid nature of the situation surrounding the applicants’ cases makes it all the more important for the Court to receive regular information and updates from the applicants (see Yuldashev and Others v.   Russia and Ukraine (dec.), cited above, § 14). 15.     The Court is thus faced with a situation in which it is not being provided with any information by the applicants nor is it in a position to contact them, which makes it impossible for the Court to continue to examine these applications. 16.     The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicants may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue their applications, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine , the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of the applications ( Yuldashev and Others v.   Russia and Ukraine (dec.), cited above, §§ 16-17). 17.     Finally, the Court reiterates that under Article 37 § 2 of the Convention it may decide to restore an application to its list of cases if it considers that the circumstances justify such a course. 18.     In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases out of the list. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases. Done in English and notified in writing on 18 December 2025.     Uğur Erdal   Faris Vehabović   Acting Deputy Registrar   President   Appendix List of cases: No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality 1. 64825/16 Laktionov v. Russia and Ukraine 03/11/2016 Oleksiy Yevgeniyovych LAKTIONOV 1977 Olenivka Ukrainian 2. 3116/17 Zentsev v. Russia and Ukraine 27/12/2016 Sergiy Oleksandrovych ZENTSEV 1952 Stanytsya Luhanskay Ukrainian 3. 4114/17 Makhrevych v. Russia and Ukraine 29/12/2016 Yuliya Volodymyrivna MAKHREVYCH 1957 Stanytsya Luhanska Ukrainian 4. 4141/17 Azaretov v. Russia and Ukraine 29/12/2016 Pavlo Oleksandrovych AZARETOV 1969 Stanytsya Luhanska Ukrainian 5. 4562/17 Cherepakhina v. Russia and Ukraine 27/12/2016 Mariya Semenivna CHEREPAKHINA 1929 Stanytsya Luhanska Ukrainian 6. 7132/17 Malikova v. Russia and Ukraine 28/12/2016 Valentyna Afanasiyivna MALIKOVA 1943 Stanytsya Luhanska Ukrainian 7. 7476/17 Karpenko v. Russia and Ukraine 16/01/2017 Yevgen Volodymyrovych KARPENKO 1965 Luhansk Ukrainian 8. 9687/17 Dobrobatko v. Russia and Ukraine 24/01/2017 Leonid Leonidovych DOBROBATKO 1970 Yenakieve Ukrainian 9. 9851/17 Kalinko v. Russia and Ukraine 27/01/2017 Nina Grygorivna KALINKO 1956 Stanytsya Luhanska Ukrainian 10. 11223/17 Mykytenko v. Russia and Ukraine 01/02/2017 Valentyna Oleksiyivna MYKYTENKO 1950 Stanytsya Luhanska Ukrainian 11. 12569/17 Kuzyuberda v. Russia and Ukraine 07/02/2017 Nina Petrivna KUZYUBERDA 1935 Stanytsya Luhanska Ukrainian 12. 13458/17 Golodnova v. Russia and Ukraine 08/02/2017 Valentyna Vasylivna GOLODNOVA 1952 Stanytsya Luhanska Ukrainian 13. 13821/17 Pshenychnyy v. Russia and Ukraine 12/02/2017 Oleg Viktorovych PSHENYCHNYY 1965 Olenivka Ukrainian 14. 13863/17 Kostromin v. Russia and Ukraine 17/02/2017 Mytrofan Yeliseyevych KOSTROMIN 1940 Stanytsya Luhanska Ukrainian 15. 15121/17 Serzhenko v. Russia and Ukraine 16/02/2017 Lidiya Leontiyivna SERZHENKO 1940 Stanytsya Luhanska Ukrainian 16. 17264/17 Cherepakhin v. Russia and Ukraine 23/02/2017 Mykola Ivanovych CHEREPAKHIN 1951 Stanytsya Luhanska Ukrainian 17. 20561/17 Shpak v. Russia and Ukraine 06/03/2017 Oleksiy Mykytovych SHPAK 1947 Stanytsya Luhanska Ukrainian 18. 20739/17 Usachov v. Russia and Ukraine 06/03/2017 Mykola Vasylyovych USACHOV 1937 Stanytsya Luhanska Ukrainian 19. 20746/17 Dyeyev v. Ukraine 06/03/2017 Volodymyr Petrovych DYEYEV 1956 Donetsk Ukrainian 20. 21890/17 Yundina v. Russia and Ukraine 14/03/2017 Nataliya Viktorivna YUNDINA 1970 Stanytsya Luhanska Ukrainian 21. 22045/17 Tolmachova v. Russia and Ukraine 10/03/2017 Olga Mykhaylivna TOLMACHOVA 1961 Stanytsya Luhanska Ukrainian 22. 22108/17 Gopkina v. Russia and Ukraine 14/03/2017 Antonina Oleksiyivna GOPKINA 1959 Stanytsya Luhanska Ukrainian 23. 22379/17 Udodenko v. Russia and Ukraine 16/03/2017 Ganna Grygorivna UDODENKO 1958 Stanytsya Luhanska Ukrainian 24. 24003/17 Kovalenko v. Ukraine 20/03/2017 Mykhaylo Valeriyovych KOVALENKO 1982 Donetsk Ukrainian 25. 24232/17 Shvets v. Russia and Ukraine 23/03/2017 Valentyna Kostyantynivna SHVETS 1941 Stanytsya Luhanska Ukrainian 26. 24257/17 Gorodovikov v. Russia and Ukraine 24/03/2017 Ivan Mykhaylovych GORODOVIKOV 1930 Stanytsya Luhanska Ukrainian 27. 31089/17 Zadorozhnyy v. Ukraine 06/04/2017 Yakov Volodymorovych ZADOROZHNYY 1960 Olenivka Ukrainian 28. 32771/17 Gorodovikov v. Russia and Ukraine 27/03/2017 Ivan Mykhaylovych GORODOVIKOV 1930 Stanytsya Luhanska Ukrainian 29. 33271/17 Turyeyev v. Russia and Ukraine 23/04/2017 Mykola Grygoriyovych TURYEYEV 1951 Stanytsya Luhanska Ukrainian 30. 37183/17 Novodran v. Russia and Ukraine 16/05/2017 Oleksandr Oleksandrovych NOVODRAN 1985 Donetsk Ukrainian 31. 38908/17 Osipov v. Russia and Ukraine 24/05/2017 Viktor Viktorovych OSIPOV 1960 Donetsk Ukrainian 32. 52527/17 Kochergin v. Ukraine 14/07/2017 Andriy Gennadiyovych KOCHERGIN 1977 Donetsk Ukrainian 33. 62205/17 Savytskyy v. Russia and Ukraine 15/08/2017 Roman Viktorovych SAVYTSKYY 1985 Donetsk Ukrainian 34. 72883/17 Zaika v. Russia and Ukraine 28/09/2017 Artem Oleksandrovych ZAIKA 1986 Donetsk Ukrainian 35. 84740/17 Kuzmenko v. Russia and Ukraine 15/12/2017 Oleksandr Oleksandrovych KUZMENKO 1968 Yenakiyeve Ukrainian 36. 12603/18 Semchuk v. Russia and Ukraine 26/02/2018 Sergiy Oleksandrovych SEMCHUK 1981 Yenakiyeve Ukrainian 37. 63976/19 Duga v. Russia and Ukraine 02/12/2019 Oleksandr Mykolayovych DUGA 1973 Yenakiyeve Ukrainian 38. 2105/20 Samoylov v. Russia and Ukraine 20/12/2019 Anatoliy Oleksiyovych SAMOYLOV 1962 Yelenovka Ukrainian