CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 novembre 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 } .sBE3C12D4 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s28666D70 { height:42.25pt } .sA55B10F6 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#b7b7b7 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sCD0C2BBB { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#b7b7b7 } .sD38315CE { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#b7b7b7 } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 15 December 2025   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 60318/15 Karine Romanivna STEPANYAN and Volodymyr Romanovych GRYNYK against Russia and Ukraine and 5 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 28 November 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications stem from the conflict between Russia and Ukraine in eastern Ukraine that started in 2014 and concern the shelling of a bus carrying civilians, near the Ukrainian Armed Forces checkpoint in the village of Buhas, Donetsk region. The incident took place on 13 January 2015 and resulted in significant civilian casualties. The applicants are either direct victims or close relatives of the direct victims of the said incident. Criminal proceedings into the incident were initiated ex officio in Ukraine. The applicants in applications nos. 2343/16, 23869/16, 27519/16, 47248/17 and 59625/17 approached Russian authorities and requested that a criminal investigation into the facts complained of be carried out by the Russian authorities as well. All the applicants except those in application no. 2343/16 attributed the shelling in question to the so-called “Donetsk People’s Republic” forces which operated under the control of the Russian Federation (see Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia [GC], nos. 8019/16 and 3 others, §§ 363 and 366, 9   July 2025). The applicants in application no.   2343/16 claimed that they were unable to determine with certainty which of the respondent States was responsible for the attack. Under Article 2 of the Convention, the applicants in applications nos.   60318/15, 2343/16, 47248/17 and 59625/17 complain about the death of their relatives (see appended table). The applicants Volodymyr Oleksandrovych Khlepitko and Yanina Andzheyivna Yasnytska (application no. 23869/16), Olga Anatoliyivna Kukuyuk (application no. 59625/17) and Mariya Sergiyivna Bozhenko (application no. 27519/16), who survived the shelling, complain in their own name and under the same provision about having been subjected to a potentially lethal attack. Relying on Article 3 of the Convention, the applicants Volodymyr Oleksandrovych Khlepitko and Yanina Andzheyivna Yasnytska (application no. 23869/16) as well as Olga Anatoliyivna Kukuyuk (application no.   59625/17) claim that they sustained physical and/or psychological harm as a result of the attack. All applicants also rely on the procedural limbs of Articles 2 and/or 3 of the Convention and complain of a lack of an investigation into their allegations above. The applicants in application no.   60318/15 complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that their access to three immovable properties located in Donetsk, which belonged to their late mother (direct victim in the bus shelling), as well as to an apartment which they owned jointly with their mother, was restricted. Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, they also complain about the impediments they encountered in accessing their home in Donetsk. Finally, and invoking Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention, they claim that their freedom of movement between the territory controlled by the Ukrainian Government and Donetsk, controlled by “Donetsk People’s Republic” militants, was restricted. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Have the applicants complied with the requirements set forth in Article   35 §1 of the Convention as in force on the dates of introduction of their applications? In particular, have the applicants shown the required degree of diligence in pursuing domestic remedies in the respondent States and in lodging their complaints with the Court without undue delay ( see, mutatis mutandis , Stanimirović v. Serbia , no.   26088/06, §§ 30-31, 18   October 2011; Melnichuk and Others   v.   Romania , nos. 35279/10 and 34782/10, §§   80 ‑ 83, 5 May 2015 ; and Samadov v. Armenia (dec.), no.   36606/08, §   18, 26   January 2021)?   2.     In respect of application no. 2343/16, has there been a violation of the substantive aspect of Article 2 of the Convention in respect of the killing of the applicants’ relative in the shelling of the civilian bus on 13   January 2015 (see, mutatis mutandis , Isayeva and Others v. Russia , nos. 57947/00 and   2   others, § 199, 24 February 2005; Bişar Ayhan and Others v. Turkey , nos.   42329/11 and 47319/11, §§ 73-74, 18 May 2021)?   3.     Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life (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) and the procedural protection from inhuman or degrading treatment (see Mocanu and Others v. Romania [GC], nos. 10865/09 and   2   others, §§ 315-326, ECHR 2014 (extracts), have effective investigations been conducted by the domestic authorities of the respondent States into the incident of 13 January 2015 complained of in the present applications, as required by Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention?   4.     In respect of the applicants in application no. 60318/15, do they have the requisite locus standi to lodge complaints concerning their deceased mother’s property rights?   5.     If the answer to the preceding question is in the affirmative, and in any event, has the applicants’ access to their own as well as their mother’s property located in Donetsk been impeded as a result of the ongoing hostilities therein (see Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia [GC], cited above, §§ 749 and 772, 9 July 2025)? If so, (a)     was the interference in accordance with the principle of lawfulness, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? (b)     was the interference proportionate to the aim pursued or did it impose an excessive burden on the applicants? 6.     Has there been a breach of the right to home in respect of the applicants in application no. 60318/15, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention?   7.     Has there been a breach of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 in respect of the applicants in application no. 60318/15?   8.     Did the applicants in applications nos. 2343/16, 23869/16, 47248/17, 59625/17 and 27519/16 have at their disposal effective domestic remedies for their Convention complaints, as required by Article 13 of the Convention? ​ ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS TO THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT AND THE APPLICANTS 1.     Has there been a violation of the substantive aspect of Article 2 of the Convention in applications nos. 60318/15, 23869/16, 27519/16, 47248/17 and 59625/17 on account of the killing of the relatives of some of the applicants and endangering of the lives of the remaining applicants in the shelling of the civilian bus on 13 January 2015 (see Selçuk v. Türkiye , no.   23093/20, §   73, 9 July 2024)?   2.     Has there been a violation of the substantive aspect of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of Volodymyr Oleksandrovych Khlepitko, Yanina Andzheyivna Yasnytska (23869/16), and Olga Anatoliyivna Kukuyuk (59625/17) on account of the physical and/or psychological injuries allegedly incurred during the incident complained of ( Ukraine and the Netherlands v.   Russia [GC], cited above, §§ 749, 752, 761-62 and 772 )?   3.     In respect of application no. 47248/17, does the applicant’s suffering which stem from the killing of his wife have a character and dimension that attains the level of severity to amount to inhuman treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention (see Ukraine and the Netherlands v.   Russia [GC], cited above, §§ 545 and 552, 9 July 2025)?     APPENDIX List of applications:   No Application Name of the case Lodged on Applicant(s) Year of birth Nationality Represented by Deceased next of kin 1. 60318/15 Stepanyan and Grynyk v. Russia and Ukraine 24 November 2015 Karine Romanivna STEPANYAN 1990 Ukrainian Andriy Anatoliyovych KRISTENKO Mariia Mykhailivna GRYNYK (mother) Volodymyr Romanovych GRYNYK 1999 Ukrainian   2. 2343/16 Kornilova and Kornilov v. Russia and Ukraine 28 December 2015 Mariya Ivanivna KORNILOVA 1939 Ukrainian Yuliya Volodymyrivna NAUMENKO Inna Oleksandrivna KORNILOVA (granddaughter and daughter of the applicants respectively)   Oleksandr Vitaliyovych KORNILOV 1970 Ukrainian 3. 23869/16 Khlepitko and Yasnytska v. Russia and Ukraine 12 April 2016 Volodymyr Oleksandrovych KHLEPITKO 1986 Ukrainian --- Yanina Andzheyivna YASNYTSKA 1994 Ukrainian --- 4. 27519/16 Bozhenko v. Russia and Ukraine 26 April 2016 Mariya Sergiyivna BOZHENKO 1996 Ukrainian --- 5. 47248/17 Lazutkin v. Russia and Ukraine 14 June 2017 Denys Viktorovych LAZUTKIN 1986 Ukrainian Anastasiia Volodymyrivna LAZUTKINA (wife) 6. 59625/17 Kukuyuk and Karpova v. Russia and Ukraine 31 July 2017 Olga Anatoliyivna KUKUYUK 1983 Ukrainian Anatolii Ivanovych KARPOV (father) Tetyana Ivanivna KARPOVA 1955 Ukrainian Anatolii Ivanovych KARPOV (husband)