CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 septembre 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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .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 } .s715E7C6D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s8DB21C27 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s134D6D70 { height:44.75pt } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sB217F556 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:1pt } Published on 6 October 2025   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 37684/15 Karen Leonidovych GABRIELYAN against Russia and Ukraine and 2 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 19 September 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES The applications stem from the armed conflict in the east of Ukraine. The applicants, all of whom are civilians, submit that they sustained property damage as a result of the shelling of the “Skhidnyi” neighbourhood of Mariupol on 24 January 2015, which was controlled by the Ukrainian Government at the material time (see also Ukraine and the Netherlands v.   Russia [GC], nos. 8019/16 and 3 others, §§ 653-54, 9 July 2025). The applicant in application no. 37684/15 also alleges that he sustained serious bodily injuries which significantly impacted his ability to walk. The applicants attribute the shelling to the “Donetsk People’s Republic” (“DPR”). On 24 January 2015 the Ukrainian law enforcement authorities initiated criminal proceedings into the attack. The authorities inspected the territory of the shelling impact and seized shrapnel pieces for expert assessment. According to the forensic explosives expert report, the shrapnel pieces had come from “unguided rocket-propelled fragmentation and high-explosive projectiles M-21 OФ launched by a ‘Grad’ multiple launch rocket system”. By February 2019 the Ukrainian authorities issued notifications of suspicion against twelve servicemen of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation allegedly responsible for the attack. The applicants in applications nos. 37684/15 (concerning his bodily injuries only) and 56530/15 also lodged criminal complaints to the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation. The former applicant received a response stating that Russia was not a party to the armed conflict in Ukraine and that the applicant should have approached the Ukrainian authorities. The latter applicant has not informed the Court of any response having been received from the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation. Complaints against the Russian Federation All applicants complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 alone and in conjunction with Article 13 of the damage caused by the shelling to their property listed in the table below, and of the alleged lack of an effective legal remedy thereto. Invoking the procedural aspect of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention alone and in conjunction with Article 13, they also complain of the Russian Federation’s alleged failure to investigate the attack that damaged their property and of the lack of effective legal remedies in this respect. The applicant in application no. 37684/15 also invokes the substantive limbs of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, claiming that the shelling significantly endangered his life and that he sustained serious bodily injuries as a result. Under Article 8 of the Convention he complains of the impact of the injury on his private life, namely the significant impediment of his ability to walk and the loss of gainful employment as a result. Complaints against Ukraine Invoking the procedural aspect of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention alone and in conjunction with Article 13, the applicants in applications nos. 56530/15 and 21187/25 complain of Ukraine’s alleged failure to carry out an effective investigation into the attack that damaged their property as well as the lack of any effective legal remedies thereto. Complaints against both respondent States The applicant in application no. 37684/15 invokes the procedural limbs of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 13 and complains of Ukraine’s and the Russian Federation’s alleged failure to carry out an effective investigation into the attack with regard to the injuries he sustained and of the lack of an effective legal remedy thereto. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Have the applicants exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article   35 §   1 of the Convention?   2.     Have the applicants in applications nos. 56530/15 and 21187/25 complied with the time-limit laid down in Article   35 §   1 of the Convention as in force on the dates of introduction of their applications? In particular, have they complied with the requirements of diligence and expedition in pursuing domestic remedies in the Respondent States and in bringing their cases to the Court ( Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos. 16064/90 and   8   others, § 162, ECHR 2009; Mocanu and Others v. Romania [GC], nos.   10865/09 and 2 others, §§ 263-69, ECHR 2014 (extracts) ; and Melnichuk and Others v. Romania , nos. 35279/10 and 34782/10, §§   80-83, 5 May 2015)?   3.     Has the Russian Federation interfered with the applicants’ peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1? If so, was that interference in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law ( Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia [GC], cited above, §§ 746 (and cases cited therein), 749-51, 769; and Kerimova and Others v. Russia , nos.   17170/04 and 5 others, §§ 298-305, 3 May 2011)?   4.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in the Russian Federation, as required by Article 13 of the Convention ( Esmukhambetov and   Others v. Russia , no. 23445/03, § 159, 29 March 2011; and Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia [GC], cited above, §§ 508-9, 1616-21)? Additional questions concerning applications nos. 56530/15 and   21187/25 5.     What was the scope of the positive obligations of Ukraine under Article   1 of Protocol No. 1, if any, with regard to the damage to the applicants’ property in the present case ( Ilaşcu and Others v. Moldova and   Russia [GC], no. 48787/99, §§ 332-35, ECHR 2004-VII; Blumberga v.   Latvia , no. 70930/01, § 69, 14 October 2008; Gherardi Martiri v.   San   Marino , no.   35511/20, § 107, 15 December 2022; and Abukauskai v.   Lithuania , no.   72065/17, §§ 54-8, 25 February 2020)? Did Ukraine comply with those obligations under this Article?   6.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in Ukraine, as required by Article   13 of the Convention? Additional questions concerning application no. 37684/15 7.     Has the applicant’s right to life, ensured by Article   2 of the Convention, been breached by the Russian Federation? In particular, has the use of lethal force been “absolutely necessary” for the achievement of one or more of the purposes set out in sub-paragraphs (a) to (c) of Article 2 of the Convention, and has it been strictly proportionate to the achievement of the permitted aims ( Isayeva v. Russia , no. 57950/00, § 173, 24 February 2005)? Has the Russian Federation taken all feasible precautions in the choice of means and methods of military action in order to avoid or at least minimise incidental loss of civilian life (ibid., § 176)?   8.     Has the Russian Federation subjected the applicant to inhuman treatment on account of the injuries he sustained, in breach of Article   3 of the Convention ( Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia [GC], cited above, §§   749, 752, 761-76)?   9.     Has there been an interference, by the Russian Federation, with the applicant’s right to respect for private life, in particular, his physical, psychological or moral integrity? If so, has that interference been in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article   8 §   2?   10.     Have the Respondent States complied with their procedural obligations to carry out an effective investigation under Articles   2 and 3 of the Convention ( Georgia v. Russia (II) [GC], no. 38263/08, §§ 326-37, 21   January 2021; Güzelyurtlu and Others v. Cyprus and Turkey [GC], no.   36925/07, §§ 229-38, 29 January 2019; Stomatii v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia , no. 69528/10, §§ 69-73, 18 September 2018; and Mocanu and Others v. Romania , cited above, § 319)?   11.     Did the applicant have at his disposal effective domestic remedies for his complaints under Articles   2 and 3 in the Respondent States, as required by Article   13 of the Convention ( Öneryıldız v. Turkey [GC], no. 48939/99, §§   145-49, ECHR 2004-XII; and Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia [GC], cited above, §§ 1617-21)?   APPENDIX List of applications:   No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Place of Residence Nationality Represented by Type of property and the level of damage Physical injury Criminal proceedings in Ukraine 1. 37684/15 Gabrielyan v. Russia and Ukraine 21/07/2015 Karen Leonidovych GABRIELYAN Mariupol Ukrainian Yuliya Volodymyrivna NAUMENKO Destroyed car Injuries of medium severity to the applicant’s lower back and buttocks Applicant recognised as a victim (with regard to his injuries only) and interviewed; his injuries assessed by a forensic medical expert 2. 56530/15 Spetsyalnyy v. Russia and Ukraine 03/11/2015 Igor Grygorovych SPETSYALNYY Mariupol Ukrainian Yuliya Volodymyrivna NAUMENKO Destroyed car None Applicant recognised as a victim 3. 21187/25 Skurenok v.   Russia and Ukraine 24/02/2016 Anatoliy Yevgenovych SKURENOK Mariupol Ukrainian Yuliya Volodymyrivna NAUMENKO Damaged apartment None Crime report with regard to the applicant’s apartment lodged by the applicant’s son