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 } .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 } Published on 6 October 2025   FOURTH SECTION Applications nos. 43730/15 and 3134/20 Olena Leonidivna BUDNYK against Russia and Ukraine and Georgiy Georgoyovych PAPUSH against Russia and Ukraine lodged on 25 August 2015 and 19 December 2019 respectively communicated on 19 September 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES The applications stem from the armed conflict in the east of Ukraine. The applicants submit that on 24 January 2015 the “Donetsk People’s Republic” (“DPR”) forces shelled the “Skhidnyi” neighbourhood of Mariupol, 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), killing their family members who were civilians. The applicant in application no. 43730/15 lost her husband and the applicant in application no. 3134/20 lost his daughter as a result of the attack. The Ukrainian law enforcement authorities initiated criminal proceedings into the attack on 24 January 2015. The applicant in application no. 43730/15 was recognised as a victim in the proceedings and interviewed on 30 January 2015. The applicant in application no. 3134/20 approached the law ‑ enforcement authorities on 4 September 2019. He was recognised as a victim on 4 November 2019. The Ukrainian 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 applicant in application no. 43730/15 lodged a criminal complaint to the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation on 7 August 2015. The response she received stated that a request for mutual legal assistance had been sent to the competent bodies of Ukraine in order to verify the information provided by the applicant. The applicant in application no. 3134/20 lodged a criminal complaint to the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation on 4 September 2019 and has not informed the Court about its outcome. Complaints The applicants invoke the substantive limb of Article 2 of the Convention against the Russian Federation, claiming that the shelling that killed their family members had been short of the requirements of necessity and/or proportionality. Invoking the procedural limbs of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 13, the applicants complain of Ukraine’s and the Russian Federation’s alleged failure to carry out an effective investigation into the attack 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.     Has the applicant in application no. 3134/20 complied with the time-limit laid down in Article   35 §   1 of the Convention as in force on the date of the introduction of his application? In particular, did he comply with the requirements of diligence and expedition in pursuing domestic remedies in the Respondent States and in bringing his case 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 applicants’ family members’ 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)?   4.     Have the Respondent States complied with their procedural obligations to carry out an effective investigation under Article   2 of the Convention (see 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; and Stomatii v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia , no.   69528/10, §§ 69-73, 18 September 2018)?   5.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their Convention complaints 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)?