CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 mars 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sBBEDD775 { margin-left:47.21pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:2.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sF4E2F6FE { margin-left:50.2pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 14 April 2025   FIRST SECTION Application no. 10691/21 Ukraine against Russia lodged on 19 February 2021 communicated on 28 March 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the allegations of an ongoing administrative practice by the Russian Federation consisting of State-authorised targeted assassination operations against its perceived opponents in Russia and on the territory of other States, including a number of member States of the Council of Europe such as Austria, Bulgaria, Germany, Latvia, Montenegro, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom, outside a situation of armed conflict. The applicant Government also alleges an administrative practice by the Russian Federation of failing to investigate these assassination operations and of deliberately mounting cover-up operations aimed at frustrating efforts made by other States to find the persons responsible. The applicant Government invokes Article 2 of the Convention under both the substantive and procedural aspects of that provision. In support of their allegation of an administrative practice, the applicant Government refer to the following assassinations/attempted assassinations taken place between 2003 and 2020: assassination of Yuri Shchekochikhin in the Russian Federation; assassination of Zelimkhan Yandarbiyev in Qatar; assassination of Anna Politkovskaya in the Russian Federation; assassination of Alexander Litvinenko in the United Kingdom; assassination of Leonid Rozhetskin in Latvia; assassination of Umar Israilov in Austria; assassination of Oleg Zhukovsky in the Russian Federation; assassination of Timur Kuashev in the Russian Federation; assassination of Boris Nemtsov in the Russian Federation; assassination of Ruslan Magomedragimov in the Russian Federation; attempted assassinations of Vladimir Kara-Murza in the Russian Federation; attempted assassination of Emelian Gebrev in Bulgaria; assassination of Ivan Mamchur in Ukraine; attempted assassination of Milo Đukanović in Montenegro; attempted assassination of Anton Gerashchenko in Ukraine; assassination of Denis Voronenkov in Ukraine; assassination of Olexander Kharaberyush in Ukraine; assassination of Maksym Shapoval in Ukraine; attempted assassination of Igor Moseychuk in Ukraine; attempted assassination of Sergei Skripal in the United Kingdom; assassination of Nikolai Glushkov in the United Kingdom; attempted assassination of Kyrylo Budanov in Ukraine; assassination of Zelimkhan Khangoshvili in Germany; attempted assassination of Alexei Navalny in the Russian Federation. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the facts of which the applicant Government complains in the present case fall within the jurisdiction of the respondent State? In particular, considering the general principles concerning extraterritorial jurisdiction set out in the Court’s admissibility decision in Ukraine and the Netherlands v.   Russia ([GC] (dec.), nos. 20958/14, 43800/14 and 42410/15, §§ 552-575, 30 November 2022), what is the ground of the said “jurisdiction”?   2.     Is there sufficiently substantiated prima facie evidence of the administrative practices alleged by the applicant Government to give rise to violations of the Convention? The parties are invited to discuss whether there is sufficiently substantiated prima facie evidence as to the existence of both the “repetition of acts” and “official tolerance” (see, Ukraine and   the   Netherlands v. Russia (cited above, §§   825 ‑ 827).   3.     Bearing in mind the answers to be given to the question above, does the rule on exhaustion of domestic remedies apply in the present case (see Georgia v. Russia (II) ((dec.), no. 38263/08, §§ 84-86, 13 December 2011)? In the affirmative, a) did effective domestic remedies exist; and if so, b)   what are/were they; and c) have they been exhausted? In particular, (i) are there examples of persons who have tried to have recourse to such remedies before the judicial authorities of the respondent State? (ii) were effective investigations carried out with respect to the alleged violations?   The parties are invited to produce all the relevant evidence regarding the investigations carried out concerning the alleged assassinations/attempted assassinations.   4.     Do the matters complained of in the application submitted by the applicant Government give rise to violations of Article 2 of the Convention? In particular, can it be established to the standard of proof required under Article 2 of the Convention that the Russian authorities were responsible for a violation of the right to life in the alleged twenty-four cases? In this context, can it be said that the acts complained of were attributable to the respondent Government? Moreover, what investigative steps have been taken by the Russian authorities into the incidents of the present case? More specifically, having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life (see Salman v.   Turkey [GC], no.   21986/93, § 104, ECHR 2000-VII), were the investigations by the Russian authorities in breach of Article   2 of the Convention?   The parties are invited to include relevant submissions as to their views on evidence collected by international bodies and non-governmental organisations which might be pertinent to the assessment of the legal issues identified.   They are further asked to provide copies in their original language and in English or French translation of all relevant evidence, on which they wish to rely or which is, or might be said to be, wholly or in large part within the exclusive knowledge or access of their authorities.