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 } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } Published on 2 February 2026   FOURTH SECTION Applications nos. 21500/22 and 28464/24 Yuliya Viktorivna KOCHUBEY against Russia and Ukraine and Igor Ivanovych MAKAR against Russia and Ukraine lodged on 2 May 2022 and 13 July 2022 respectively 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 the applicants’ close relatives – Ukrainian military servicemen at the time – by Russian forces in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions in March 2022 (see, for the context, Ukraine and the Netherlands v.   Russia [GC], nos. 8019/16 and 3 others, §§ 66-71, 9 July 2025). The applicant in application no. 21500/22 is represented by Mr   M.   Tarakhkalo, a lawyer practising in Kyiv. FACTS Application no. 21500/22 On 25 February 2022 the applicant’s half-brother, Mr Milyukov, was conscripted into the Ukrainian army. He was last in contact on 13 March 2022. According to the applicant, on an unspecified date the military unit in which Mr Milyukov had served informed her that he had gone missing in the Donetsk region. In response to her enquiries, on 22 April 2022 the Ukrainian National Center for Peacebuilding (acting as an Information Bureau under the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War) confirmed that contact with Mr Milyukov had been lost and that he might be in Russian captivity. On 30   April 2022 the United Centre for the Search of Captives (operating under the auspices of the Security Service of Ukraine) responded that Mr Milyukov’s whereabouts were unknown. On 29 April 2022 the applicant also enquired into the matter with the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and specifically asked whether Mr Milyukov had undergone any combat training prior to his deployment on a combat mission. The applicant claims that she had not received a response to that query by the date on which she lodged her application. On 2 May 2022 the applicant requested the Court to indicate interim measures under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. On 5 May 2022 the Court refused the request in so far as it concerned Ukraine, and granted it in so far as it concerned the Russian Federation. The Court decided to indicate to the Russian Government to ensure respect for Mr Milyukov’s Convention rights and to provide him with necessary and appropriate medical treatment. It also decided to request factual information about him from the Russian Government. No replies have been provided. On 4 May 2022 a criminal investigation was opened in Ukraine into Mr   Milyukov’s disappearance under Article 115 of the Criminal Code (intentional murder). According to the applicant, on 16 May 2022 the military unit informed her that Mr Milyukov had been killed. Subsequently, an internal investigation was initiated by the unit into his death which established that on 14 March 2022 Russian forces had launched an artillery offensive against the positions of the Ukrainian army in Blahodatne, Donetsk region, resulting in direct confrontation and a firefight between enemy forces. During the offensive Mr   Milyukov had taken up a position to open fire against the enemy manpower to prevent a breakthrough. During the combat he had sustained fatal injuries caused by the explosion of ammunition of an unspecified caliber. His body could not be evacuated due to intense fire by Russian forces. The above findings were reproduced in the internal investigation report, two witness statements by fellow servicemen, and the military unit’s act certifying death, all dated 12 May 2022. The investigation report established the cause of death as gunshot and shrapnel wounds. On 6 October 2022 the Court decided, in view of the above information provided by the applicant, to lift the interim measure previously indicated on 5 May 2022. The applicant alleges that local residents of Blahodatne informed her that Russian forces had taken Mr Milyukov’s personal belongings after his death. The local residents had only been allowed to bury his body around four weeks later, under the supervision of Russian forces, in a mass burial and without any documents or identification marks. Lastly, the applicant alleges that, according to the information provided to her by Ukrainian authorities, no exhumation or evacuation of Mr Milyukov’s body was possible as long as Blahodatne remained under Russian occupation. In this regard, she specifically claims to have approached the Search Operations Department of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. Application no. 28464/24 On an unspecified date the applicant’s son, Mr Makar, was conscripted into the Ukrainian army. According to the applicant, on 14 March 2022 the military authorities informed him that Mr Makar had died on 6 March 2022. To support this claim, the applicant submitted to the Court a written notification of death issued by the military authorities. On 23 March 2022 a criminal investigation was opened in Ukraine under Article 115 of the Criminal Code (intentional murder). According to three witness statements provided by fellow servicemen and dated 3 and 13 June 2022, Mr Makar had sustained a shrapnel injury to his skull in combat as a result of an artillery shelling in Popasna, Luhansk region, and died instantly as a result. His body could not be evacuated due to intense fire by Russian forces. According to a letter from the military unit dated 10 June 2022, an internal investigation was initiated into Mr Makar’s death. The case-file contains no information on the findings of that investigation. The applicant alleges that he contacted the authorities regarding the search and return of his son’s body for burial, but to no avail. The applicant claims that for the purposes of compliance with the admissibility criteria, the four-month period started running on 14 March 2022. COMPLAINTS AGAINST THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION Relying on Article 2 of the Convention under its substantive limb, the applicants in both applications complain that the Russian Federation was responsible for the deaths of their relatives. In this regard, the applicant in application no. 21500/22 specifically claims that Russia has not sought to derogate from its Article 2 obligations, as prescribed under Article 15, and that its military operations in Ukraine – carried out as part of its aggression against that State – cannot be considered “the use of force which is necessary in defence of any person” for the purposes of Article 2. Invoking Article 2 of the Convention under its procedural limb, the applicant in application no. 21500/22 further complains that the Russian Federation failed to carry out an effective investigation into Mr Milyukov’s death. She adds that Russia also failed to investigate his initial disappearance and the whereabouts of his body. Referring to Articles 3, 8 and 34 of the Convention, respectively, the applicant in application no. 21500/22 further complains that the Russian Federation failed (i) to take measures to ensure the exhumation and return of Mr Milyukov’s body; (ii) to ensure his dignified burial and the possibility to identify his remains and the location of the gravesite in accordance with relevant provisions of international humanitarian law; and (iii) to comply with the interim measure indicated by the Court on 5 May 2022. Invoking Articles   3 and 8 of the Convention raised in substance, the applicant in application no. 28464/24 further complains that the Russian Federation failed to take measures to ensure the return of Mr Makar’s body for burial. Lastly, relying on Article 13 of the Convention, the applicants in both applications further complain, either expressly or in substance – as in application no. 21500/22 – that there were no effective domestic remedies in the Russian Federation in respect of their complaints. COMPLAINTS AGAINST UKRAINE Invoking Article 2 of the Convention under its substantive limb, the applicant in application no. 21500/22 complains that Ukraine failed to discharge its positive obligation to take preventive measures to safeguard the life of her relative. In this regard, she alleges that Mr Milyukov was deployed to an area of active hostilities shortly after his conscription and without having undergone requisite combat training. Relying on Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, the applicants in both applications further complain, either expressly or in substance – as in application no. 28464/24 – that Ukraine failed to take all available measures to ensure the exhumation and return of their relatives’ bodies. Lastly, referring to Article 13 of the Convention, the applicants in both applications further complain, either expressly or in substance – as in application no. 21500/22 – that there were no effective domestic remedies in Ukraine in respect of their complaints. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Have the applicants complied with the admissibility requirements set forth in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, in so far as their complaints against Ukraine are concerned, have the applicants exhausted all effective   domestic remedies, as required by that Article? Moreover, has the applicant in application no. 28464/24 complied with the four-month time-limit, as required by that Article? As regards application no. 28464/24, the parties are requested to submit a legible copy of the written notification of death issued by the military authorities by which the applicant was informed of the incident.   2.     Has the right to life of the applicants’ relatives, ensured by Article 2 of the Convention, been violated by the Russian Federation (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 in question.   3.     Has the right to life of the applicant’s relative in application no.   21500/22, guaranteed by Article 2 of the Convention, been violated by Ukraine? In particular, did the State fail to comply with its positive obligation to take appropriate steps to   safeguard the life   of the applicant’s relative?   4.     Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 104, ECHR 2000-VII), has any investigation been carried out by the Russian Federation in application no.   21500/22 in respect of the applicant’s allegation of a violation of Article   2 of the Convention, as required by that provision?   5.     Have the applicants been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment by the respondent States, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, in respect of their suffering due to their inability to have the bodies of their relatives returned (see, mutatis mutandis , Khadzhialiyev and Others v. Russia , no.   3013/04, §   121, 6 November 2008; see also Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia , cited above, §§ 549 and 552)? Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their private and family life within the meaning of Article 8 §   1 of the Convention in that connection (see, mutatis   mutandis , Gurbanov v. Armenia , no. 7432/17, §§ 54-57, 5 October 2023; Sabanchiyeva and Others v.   Russia , no.   38450/05, §§ 117-23, ECHR 2013 (extracts) and Gülbahar Özer and Yusuf Özer v. Turkey , no.   64406/09, §§ 26-27, 29 May 2018)? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?   6.     With regard to the complaint of the failure to ensure a dignified burial of the applicant’s relative and the possibility to identify his remains and the location of the gravesite in accordance with the relevant provisions of international humanitarian law in application no. 21500/22, has there been an interference by the Russian Federation with the applicant’s right to respect for her private and family life 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?   7.     Did the applicants have at their disposal effective domestic remedies for their Convention complaints in the respondent States, 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)?   8.     Have the Government of the Russian Federation complied with the interim measure indicated on 5 May 2022 under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court in application no. 21500/22? If the answer is in the negative, has there been a hindrance by the Russian Government with the effective exercise of the applicant’s right of individual application, as 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)?