CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 août 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s65E06E64 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sA790A2B6 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#4d4d4d } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 15 September 2025   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 25999/22 Oksana Anatoliyivna KUCHERENKO against Russia and Ukraine and 2 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 28 August 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES The applications concern the alleged ill-treatment and unlawful detention of a number of Ukrainian prisoners of war who are the applicants’ close relatives and who were captured by Russian forces during the full-scale invasion in Mariupol in the Donetsk region in April and May 2022 and taken to an unknown location (see Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia [GC], nos. 8019/16 and 3 others, § 69, 9 July 2025). The applicants in applications nos. 25999/22 and 45951/22 have been unable to establish the whereabouts of their close relatives. The applicant in application 52300/22 states that, according to the information provided by a number of released prisoners of war, her husband was detained in the Olenivka penal colony in the Donetsk region until 18   September 2022. Subsequently, the applicant has been unable to establish the whereabouts of her husband. On different dates between 8 June to 14 November 2022, the applicants in all applications requested the Court to indicate interim measures under Rule   39 of the Rules of the Court. The Court accepted the requests and decided to indicate to the Government of the Russian Federation that they should ensure respect for the Convention rights of the applicant’s son in application no. 25999/22, and ensure that the applicants’ relatives are able to have access to their families and/or representatives with a view to enabling them to exercise effectively their right of individual application in applications nos. 45951/22 and 52300/22. In addition, the Court also decided to indicate to the Government of Ukraine to ensure, insofar as possible to do so, respect for the Convention rights of the applicant’s husband in application no. 52300/22. The interim measures remain in force. Relying on Article 2 of the Convention, the applicants in applications nos.   25999/22 and 45951/22 complain that their relatives might have been killed following their capture. Furthermore, relying on Article 13 in conjunction with Article 2 of the Convention, the applicant in application no.   25999/22 complains that no effective remedy was available in respect of the alleged violation. Invoking the procedural limb of Article 2, the applicant in application no. 45951/22 complains of the Russian Federation’s and Ukraine’s alleged failure to carry out an effective investigation. Relying on Article 3 of the Convention, the applicants in all applications complain that they have been suffering severe mental distress due to the indifference displayed by Russian authorities regarding the capture and subsequent disappearance of their relatives and the failure to conduct an effective investigation into these facts. Relying on Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention, the applicants in all applications complain that their relatives were unlawfully detained in inhuman and degrading conditions and subjected to torture by Russian authorities. They complain that no effective investigation was carried out by Russian or Ukrainian authorities in respect of their allegations. Furthermore, relying on Article 13 of the Convention, the applicants in applications nos.   25999/22 and 52300/22 complain that no effective remedy was available in respect of the alleged violations. The applicant in application no. 52300/22 complains that Ukraine did not fulfil its positive obligation under Article 5 of the Convention to release her husband from captivity using all possible legal and diplomatic means. Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, the applicant in application no.   45951/22 complains that her husband was subjected to an absolute ban on contact with family members and the outside world by Russian authorities. Lastly, relying on Article 34 of the Convention, the applicants in application nos. 25999/22 and 52300/22 complain that the Russian Federation failed to implement the interim measures indicated by the Court on 8 June and 14 November 2022, respectively. In support of their allegations above, the applicants rely on the reports by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, as well as reports from Ukrainian authorities and media reports.         QUESTIONS TO THE APPLICANTS AND THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT 1.     Have the applicants complied with the admissibility requirements set forth in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?   2.     Has the right to life of the applicants’ relatives in applications nos.   25999/22 and 45951/22, ensured by Article 2 of the Convention been violated? Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 104, ECHR 2000-VII), have investigations been carried out into the applicant’s allegations of a violation of Article 2 of the Convention in application no. 45951/22?   3.     Has the applicants’ mental suffering in connection with the disappearance of their relatives and the authorities’ alleged indifference in that respect and alleged failure to conduct an effective investigation into the disappearance been sufficiently serious to amount to inhuman and degrading treatment, within the meaning of Article   3 of the Convention? If so, has there been a breach of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicants (see Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia [GC], cited above, § 1081)?   4.     Were the applicants’ relatives in all the applications subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia [GC], cited above, § 1076)? Have investigations been carried out into the applicants’ allegations of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention as required by that provision?   5.     Were the applicants’ relatives deprived of their liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see Hassan v. the United Kingdom [GC], no.   29750/09, §§ 100-07, 16 September 2014)?   6.     Has there been a breach of the rights of the applicant’s husband in application no. 45951/22 under Article 8 of the Convention on account of the alleged absolute ban on his contact with family?   7.     Did the applicants in applications nos. 25999/22 and 52300/22 have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under   Articles 2 (in application no. 25999/22 only), 3 and 5 as required by Article 13 of the Convention ( Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia [GC], cited above, §§ 1617-21)? 8.     Have the Government of the Russian Federation complied with the interim measures indicated under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court in applications nos. 25999/22 and 52300/22 on 8 June and 14 November 2022 respectively? If the answer is in the negative, was there a hindrance by the Russian Government with the effective exercise of the applicants’ right of individual application, ensured by Article 34 of the Convention (see Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey [GC], nos. 46827/99 and 46951/99, §§   128-29, ECHR 2005-I)?       QUESTIONS TO THE APPLICANTS AND THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT 1.     Have the applicants complied with the admissibility requirements set forth in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?   2.     Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 104, ECHR 2000-VII), have investigations been carried out in respect of the applicant’s allegations in application no. 45951/22 of a violation of Article 2 of the Convention?   3.     Have investigations been carried out in respect of the applicants’ allegations in all the applications of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention, as required by that provision? Did the applicants in application nos. 25999/22 and 52300/22 have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Article 3 as required by Article 13 of the Convention?   4.     What is the scope of Ukraine’s positive obligations under Article 5 in application no. 52300/22? Have these obligations been fulfilled? (see Mozer v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia   [GC], no.   11138/10, § 151, 23   February 2016)?     APPENDIX List of applications:   No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Applicant’s relative Date of Birth Relation Nationality Represented by Date and place of capture of the applicants’ relative 1. 25999/22 Kucherenko v. Russia and Ukraine 30/05/2022 Oksana Anatoliyivna KUCHERENKO 1982 Synelnykove Ukrainian Artem Sergiyovych KUCHERENKO 2001 son Ukrainian Mykhaylo Oleksandrovych TARAKHKALO 12/04/2022 Mariupol 2. 45951/22 Mylostyva v. Russia and Ukraine 13/09/2022 Galyna Bogdanivna MYLOSTYVA 1993 Zibolky Ukrainian   Vitaliy Andriyovych MYLOSTYVYY 1991 husband Ukrainian   12/04/2022 Mariupol 3. 52300/22 Pozdnyakova v. Russia and Ukraine 10/11/2022 Kateryna Viktorivna POZDNYAKOVA 1982 Illintsi Ukrainian Igor Yuriyovych LYCHANYY 1972 husband Ukrainian Mykhaylo Oleksandrovych TARAKHKALO 17/05/2022 Mariupol