CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 janvier 2026

.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 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sB4B39BDE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .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 } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sB5EBD387 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:9.5pt } .sD7287D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:9pt } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7BE5FA79 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sE08B5FE3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } Published on 2 February 2026   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 50025/22 Tetyana Petrivna TKALYCH against Russia and 10 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 12 January 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications arise from the full-scale invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Federation which began on 24 February 2022. They concern the alleged unlawful killing of a number of relatives of some of the applicants and injuries caused to the remaining applicants – all of whom were Ukrainian military servicemen at the time – by Russian forces in the Donetsk, Kharkiv, Kherson, Kyiv and Luhansk regions between 2 March and 28 August 2022 (see, for the context, Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia [GC], nos.   8019/16 and 3   others, §§ 66-71, 9 July 2025). A list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out   in the appended table. COMPLAINTS Relying on Article 2 of the Convention under its substantive limb, the applicants complain, either expressly or in substance – as in application no.   24155/24 – that the Russian Federation was responsible for the deaths of their relatives (applications nos. 50025/22, 57618/22, 27688/24, 31409/24, 32219/24, 32996/24, 33504/24 and 1250/25) and their own injuries (applications nos. 12014/23, 24155/24 and 34259/24). The applicant in application no. 1250/25 raises her complaint with reference to Articles 2 and   8 of the Convention. Invoking Article 2 of the Convention under its procedural limb, the applicants in applications nos. 31409/24, 32996/24 and 34259/24 further complain that the Russian Federation failed to carry out effective investigations into the respective deaths and injuries. Under Article 3 of the Convention, the applicant in application no.   50025/22 further complains that she was forced to flee her home and relocate abroad due to the hostilities. Invoking Article 3 of the Convention in substance, the applicant in application no. 32219/24 further complains that Russian attacks forced her to shelter in a basement for several weeks without electricity, water or food. Lastly, referring to Article 13 of the Convention, the applicants in applications nos. 50025/22, 57618/22, 12014/23, 24155/24, 31409/24, 32219/24, 32996/24 and 34259/24 complain that there were no effective domestic remedies in the Russian Federation in respect of their complaints. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Does the applicant in application no. 31409/24 have the requisite standing to complain about the killing of his brother-in-law (see also Van   Melle and Others v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 19221/08, 29 September 2009)?   2.     Have the applicants complied with the admissibility requirements set forth in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, have the applicants in applications nos. 50025/22, 12014/23, 32996/24 and 33504/24 complied with the four-month time-limit, as required by that Article?   3.     Has the right to life of the applicants’ relatives and of the applicants who were injured themselves, ensured by Article 2 of the Convention, been violated (see also Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia [GC], nos. 8019/16 and 3 others, §§   429-31, 450, 743, 747 and 1033-34, 9 July 2025)? The parties are requested to submit all the evidence in their possession concerning the exact circumstances of the deaths and injuries in question. The applicant in application no. 24155/24 is also requested to submit documents showing that he suffered the injury complained of while serving as a military serviceman.   4.     Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 104, ECHR 2000-VII), have any investigations been carried out in respect of the applicants’ allegations of a violation of Article 2 of the Convention, as required by that provision, in applications nos. 31409/24, 32996/24 and 34259/24?   5.     Has the applicant in application no. 32219/24 been subjected to inhuman treatment contrary to Article   3 of the Convention on account of her suffering due to Russian military attacks (see Ukraine and the Netherlands v.   Russia , cited above, §§ 761-62)?   6.     With regard to the complaint of relocation in application no. 50025/22, has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for her home within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article   8   §   2 (see Chiragov and Others v. Armenia   [GC], no.   13216/05, §§   206-08, ECHR 2015)   7.     Did the applicants in applications nos. 50025/22, 57618/22, 12014/23, 24155/24, 31409/24, 32219/24, 32996/24 and 34259/24 have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their Convention complaints, as required by Article 13 of the Convention (see Öneryıldız v .   Turkey   [GC], no.   48939/99, §§ 145-49, ECHR 2004-XII; see also Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia , cited above, §§ 1617-21)?     APPENDIX List of cases:   No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant; Applicant’s Kinship; Year of Birth; Place of Residence; and Nationality Applicant’s Relative; Year of Birth; and Nationality Represented by Date and Place of Incident Relevant details 1. 50025/22 Tkalych v.   Russia 12/10/2022 Tetyana Petrivna TKALYCH Wife 1985 Kyiv Ukrainian Dmytro Volodymyrovych KRYVETS 1981 Ukrainian Oleksandr Grygorovych SAVYNSKYY 21/04/2022 Rubizhne Luhansk region On 09/04/2022 the applicant’s husband Mr Kryvets (hereinafter “K.”), was conscripted into the National Guard of Ukraine. He was last in contact on 21/04/2022. According to the applicant, on an unspecified date the military unit in which K. had served informed her that he had not returned from a combat mission. On 13/06/2022 the commander of the military unit drew up a collective act certifying K.’s death. According to the act, K. had died in action on 21/04/2022 in Rubizhne, Luhansk region, in the presence of three fellow servicemen, who confirmed his death. On 28/06/2022 the Lokhvytsia District Court of Poltava Region established the fact of K.’s death. In August 2022 an internal investigation was initiated by the National Guard of Ukraine into K.’s death. The investigation established that on 21/04/2022 Russian forces had opened mortar fire against the positions of the Ukrainian defenders, resulting in the loss of contact with K. He sustained fatal injuries caused by the explosion of a mortar shell of an unspecified caliber. The above findings were reproduced in the internal investigation report and the injury report, both dated 18/08/2022. The applicant claims that for the purposes of compliance with the admissibility criteria, the four-month period started running on 13/06/2022. Other facts: Fleeing from the hostilities in Ukraine, on 10/03/2022 the applicant entered Hungary, where in May 2022 she obtained a residence permit valid until March 2023. 2. 57618/22 Vereta v.   Russia 26/11/2022 Tetyana Sergiyivna VERETA Wife 1992 Gayivshchyna Ukrainian Leonid Vasylyovych VERETA 1982 Ukrainian Oleksandr Grygorovych SAVYNSKYY 06/08/2022 Bilohirka Kherson region On 12/04/2022 the applicant’s husband Mr Vereta (hereinafter “V.”), was conscripted into the Ukrainian army. On 09/08/2022 the military authorities informed the applicant that V. had died in action on 06/08/2022 near Bilohirka, Kherson region. According to the written notification of death dated 09/08/2022, V. had died as a result of an airstrike carried out by Russian forces. The medical death certificate of the same date established the cause of death as acute blood loss and shrapnel wounds to lower limbs. On 31/10/2022 the applicant complained about V.’s death to the Investigative Committee and the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation. On 18/11/2022 the Ministry of Justice informed her that it was not competent to investigate actions committed on foreign territory. 3. 12014/23 Gerasymenko v.   Russia 20/02/2023 Mykhaylo Volodymyrovych GERASYMENKO 1982 Popasna Ukrainian -- Yevgen Oleksandrovych CHERNENKO 28/08/2022 Soledar Donetsk region On an unspecified date the applicant was conscripted into the Ukrainian army. According to the medical certificates dated 29 and 30/08/2022, on 28/08/2022 the applicant had sustained multiple pelvis and hip fractures, as well as blast and shrapnel injuries to his head and upper limb. The applicant claims that the injuries were the result of a Russian artillery shelling in Soledar, Donetsk region. He underwent surgery on 29/08/2022 and received inpatient treatment until 30/08/2022. The medical certificate issued by the military authorities on 03/01/2023 established that the applicant’s condition necessitated inpatient treatment. According to a similar certificate issued on 31/01/2023, the applicant’s condition still necessitated continuous treatment for a period of one month. On 16/02/2023 the applicant complained about his injuries to the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation. 4. 24155/24 Tkachenko v. Russia 23/07/2022 Igor Mykolayovych TKACHENKO 1980 Kyiv Ukrainian --   22/04/2022 Zarichne Donetsk region The applicant claims to have been injured on 22/04/2022 as a result of an artillery shelling carried out by Russian forces in Zarichne, Donetsk region. According to the medical certificates dated 24/04/2022 and 10/05/2022, he had sustained a blast and shrapnel injury to his shoulder, resulting in a fracture of the humerus. It appears from these medical certificates that the applicant claimed to be a military serviceman at the relevant time and to have been injured in combat. The applicant underwent surgeries on 25/04/2022, 02/05/2022 and 06/05/2022. 5. 27688/24 Yurovska and Yurovskyy v.   Russia 23/06/2022 Lyudmyla Petrivna YUROVSKA Mother 1948 Kharkiv Ukrainian Borys Savych YUROVSKYY Father 1949 Kharkiv Ukrainian Vladyslav Borysovych YUROVSKYY 1971 Ukrainian   02/03/2022 Kharkiv Kharkiv region On an unspecified date the applicants’ son Mr Yurovskyy (hereinafter “Y.”), was conscripted into the Ukrainian army. The applicants claim that Y. died as a result of a Russian missile strike on the military unit in which he had served. According to the medical death certificate of 17/03/2022, Y. had died on 02/03/2022 in Kharkiv. The cause of death was established as a blast injury sustained in combat. 6. 31409/24 Beketov v.   Russia 29/06/2022 Oleksiy Yuriyovych BEKETOV Brother-in-law 1979 Kharkiv Ukrainian Vadym Volodymyrovych BOBRIVNYK 1989 Ukrainian   09/05/2022 Kharkiv Kharkiv region On an unspecified date the applicant’s brother-in-law Mr Bobrivnyk (hereinafter “B.”), was conscripted into the Ukrainian army. According to the written notification of death issued by the military authorities on 09/05/2022, B. had died in action on the same date in Kharkiv. According to the medical certificate dated 09/05/2022, B. had sustained a fatal mine-explosive injury when driving over a mine. The applicant claims that B. died from a shell explosion resulting from a Russian shelling. 7. 32219/24 Chausova v.   Russia 15/08/2022 Liliya Vasylyivna CHAUSOVA 1950 Mother Lviv Ukrainian Andriy Oleksiyovych CHAUSOV 1970 Ukrainian   19/06/2022 Rtyshchivka Kharkiv region On 24/02/2022 the applicant’s son Mr Chausov (hereinafter “Ch.”), was conscripted into the Ukrainian army. According to the written notification of death issued on 19/06/2022 by the military unit in which Ch. had served, Ch. had died on the same date from a shrapnel injury sustained as a result of a mortar shelling near Rtyshchivka, Kharkiv region. The medical death certificate dated 20/06/2022 established the cause of death as a blast injury sustained in combat. Other facts: The applicant claims to have resided in Bucha, Kyiv region, at the time of the beginning of the full-scale invasion. It appears from the case-file that she was first registered at that address in November 2015. Relying on photographs in support of her allegations, she further states that in February 2022 she was forced to shelter in a basement for several weeks without electricity, water or food as a result of Russian attacks. 8. 32996/24 Grytsayenko v.   Russia 20/07/2022 Viktoriya Oleksandrivna GRYTSAYENKO Wife 1992 Kalmazove Ukrainian Vitaliy Mykolayovych GRYTSAYENKO 1990 Ukrainian   19/03/2022 Mariupol Donetsk region On an unspecified date the applicant’s husband Mr Grytsayenko (hereinafter “G.”), was conscripted into the National Guard of Ukraine. According to the death certificate issued on 21/04/2022 by the military unit in which G. had served, he had died in action on 19/03/2022. The cause of death was established as mine-explosive and gunshot injuries sustained as a result of a Russian attack. According to the official death certificate dated 25/05/2022, the place of death was Mariupol. 9. 33504/24 Yaroshenko v. Russia 04/07/2022 Yaroslava Igorivna YAROSHENKO Daughter 2000 Petropavlivska Borshchagivka Ukrainian Igor Petrovych YAROSHENKO 1975 Ukrainian   03/03/2022 Borodianka Kyiv region On 24/02/2022 the applicant’s father Mr Yaroshenko (hereinafter “Y.”), was conscripted into the Ukrainian army. It appears from the case-file that on 06/03/2022 Y.’s relatives were contacted from Y.’s telephone in a mobile messenger. The applicant claims that the messages were sent by Russian forces. The messages contained a picture of a car and a request to collect the body, allegedly that of Y., that was allegedly in the car. According to the medical death certificate issued on 22/03/2022, Y. had died on 03/03/2022 in Borodianka, Kyiv region. The cause of death was established as haemorrhagic shock, acute blood loss, open wounds to the chest and abdomen, lower back and pelvis, all sustained as a result of the hostilities from firearms and other conventional weapons. According to the extract from the order by the military authorities dated 25/04/2022, Y. had died during a firefight with enemy manpower from a fatal gunshot wound to the chest. 10. 34259/24 Khmarskyy v.   Russia 25/07/2022 Roman Borysovych KHMARSKYY 1976 Zaporizhzhya Ukrainian --   22/04/2022 Novoselivka Donetsk region On 25/02/2022 the applicant was conscripted into the Ukrainian army. He claims to have been injured on 22/04/2022 as a result of artillery and mortar shelling carried out by Russian forces near Novoselivka, Donetsk region. According to the medical certificates dated 23, 25, 28/04/2022 and 19/05/2022, he had sustained multiple blast and shrapnel injuries to his lower limbs, groin and shoulder. He underwent surgeries on 28/04/2022 and 03/05/2022. According to the certificate issued by the applicant’s military unit on 31/05/2022, the applicant had sustained his injuries in combat as a result of shelling. 11. 1250/25 Semenova v.   Russia 24/08/2022 Yuliya Oleksandrivna SEMENOVA Wife 1983 Dnipro Ukrainian Maksym Viktorovych SEMENOV 1973 Ukrainian   10/05/2022 Novoselivka Donetsk region On 12/03/2022 the applicant’s husband Mr Semenov (hereinafter “S.”), was conscripted into the Ukrainian army. According to the written notification of death issued by the military authorities on 11/05/2022, S. had died in combat on 10/05/2022 near Novoselivka, Donetsk region. According to the extract dated 13/05/2022 and drawn up by the military unit in which S. had served, S. had died from blast injuries sustained during the hostilities.