CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 15 décembre 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 } .sF023082F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:21.3pt; text-align:justify } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s63658818 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s1DE04B9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s3DB046A9 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; background-color:#ffffff } .s391E78BA { font-family:Arial; background-color:#ffffff } .s9252AC04 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } Published on 12 January 2026   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 53182/19 Yevgen Anatoliyovych YACHNYEV against Russia and Ukraine lodged on 3 October 2019 communicated on 15 December 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application emanates from the armed conflict with Russia in the east of Ukraine. It concerns several issues relating to and stemming from the applicant’s detention in Donetsk region from 13 July 2013 onward. The applicant’s detention in the Donetsk pre-trial detention centre (“Donetsk SIZO”) On 13 July 2013 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of committing a crime and detained on remand in Donetsk SIZO by decision of a Ukrainian court in Donetsk. The detention was subsequently extended multiple times, throughout the outbreak of the armed conflict and after Donetsk fell under the control of the so-called “Donetsk People’s Republic” (“DPR”). No later than 11 May 2014 Russia started exercising effective control over the east of Ukraine ( Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia (dec.) [GC], nos. 8019/16 and 2 others, § 696, 30 November 2022). On 7 August 2014 the “DPR” forces took Donetsk SIZO under their control. At the same time, until 28 August 2014 local courts in Donetsk, acting as Ukrainian courts, continued to extend the applicant’s detention on remand. The last such decision extended the applicant’s detention until 25 October 2014. On 7 October 2014 the Ukrainian Government officially ceased their de facto authority over Donetsk. It appears that between 25 October 2014 and 5 March 2015 the applicant remained in Donetsk SIZO without any legal basis. On 5 March 2015 a “court” of the “DPR” extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention for an unlimited term. According to the most recent information available to the Court, he is still in detention. Criminal case against the applicant (a)    In non-government controlled territory of Ukraine (“NGCT”) On 5 March 2015 a “trial court” of the “DPR” took over the proceedings initiated in 2013 against the applicant. On 17 July 2017 the “trial court” of the “DPR” found the applicant guilty of a crime and sentenced him to 12 years and 6 months of imprisonment. Subsequently, the sentence was quashed following the applicant’s appeal. On 9 June 2023 a “Russian court” in Donetsk sentenced the applicant to 4 years of imprisonment. The applicant appealed. In his letter of 3 January 2024 addressed to the Court the applicant stated that the appeal proceedings were still pending. In the same letter, the applicant informed the Court that he was being forced to obtain Russian nationality and join the Russian armed forces. (b)    In Government-controlled territory of Ukraine (“GCT”) All records of criminal proceedings against the applicant remained in NGCT. In light of that, on 25 December 2014 a local court in GCT suspended the proceedings against the applicant and put him on the wanted list because “it was not possible to verify his whereabouts in NGCT”. This decision was not subject to appeal. That warrant is still in force. In 2016 the applicant’s lawyer requested a local court in GCT to order the applicant’s release from detention. On 11 July 2016 the court rejected the request stating that it had no information about the proceedings against the applicant and his whereabouts. On 11 December 2019 the applicant’s lawyer requested the law enforcement authorities in Ukraine to terminate the proceedings against the applicant due to him being illegally detained in the “DPR” since 2013. On 19   December 2019 the request was rejected because there was purportedly no legal basis for the termination of the proceedings. Conditions of detention in Donetsk SIZO under the “DPR” control According to the applicant, the conditions of detention in Donetsk SIZO significantly deteriorated after it had come under the control of the “DPR”. In particular, windows in the applicant’s cell were blown out by shelling in 2014 and there were no new windows until 2016. The drinking water was contaminated, food was spoiled, cells were overcrowded and ventilation was poor. He also states that he has a number of serious chronic health problems but is unable to receive any medical assessment or treatment in Donetsk SIZO. The applicant additionally claims that he has received verbal threats and humiliating comments from SIZO “administration” due to his pro ‑ Ukrainian position and his willingness to return to GCT. On 21 November 2023 the applicant was transferred to Makiivka prison no. 32 in the Donetsk region. The applicant’s family life The applicant’s parents reside in GCT. According to the applicant, any communication with people in GCT was prohibited in Donetsk SIZO. The applicant also has three children. He states that he has not been allowed visits while in SIZO until the sentence against him becomes final. The applicant’s inability to practice his religion in Donetsk SIZO under the “DPR” control The applicant is a practising Muslim. He states that SIZO “administration” seized his religious literature, banned any discussion of Islam, and prohibited wearing a beard. Collective Muslim prayer was also forbidden, and Muslim detainees were deliberately placed into separate cells, making collective worship impossible. Efforts to transfer the applicant to GCT On 14 November 2014 Ukraine’s National Security and Defence Board adopted a regulation obliging the Ministry of Justice to take immediate action to transfer the staff and inmates of penitentiary facilities in the area of hostilities to GCT. The applicant has repeatedly contacted the Ukrainian Ombudsperson, the Ministry of Justice, the Security Service as well as the National Security and Defence Board requesting their assistance with his transfer to GCT. These requests were unsuccessful. The Ministry of Justice informed that no procedure existed for the transfer of detainees the proceedings against whom were still pending. Investigation in Ukraine into the applicant’s deprivation of liberty in the “DPR” On 29 August 2019 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint in Ukraine about his illegal detention in the “DPR”. The Ukrainian authorities initiated criminal proceedings, which are still pending. Interim measures applied by the Court On 4 November 2019 the Court, under Rule 39 of the Rules of the Court and at the request of the applicant, indicated to the Governments of Ukraine and the Russian Federation that they should ensure respect for the applicant’s rights under the Convention. It additionally urged the Ukrainian Government to continue their efforts to transfer the applicant to territory under their control, to provide him with an adequate medical examination, and, if necessary, appropriate treatment. The Court also decided that the public should not have access to the documents deposited with the Registry (Rule 33 § 1 of the Rules of Court). The interim measure indicated by the Court is still in force. The applicant informed the Court that the interim measure has not been enforced by the respondent States. COMPLAINTS Complaints against Ukraine Under Article 3 of the Convention and referring to the poor material conditions of detention in Donetsk SIZO, the applicant complains of Ukraine’s alleged failure to transfer him to GCT and to carry out an effective investigation of his allegedly illegal detention in the “DPR”. Under Article 5 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the 25   December 2014 arrest warrant, which he alleges to be arbitrary in light of his already being illegally detained in NGCT, would make him subject to an arrest should he return – as he would like to – to GCT. Under Article 6 of the Convention, the applicant complains of the fact that the criminal proceedings against him in Ukraine are still formally pending but no progress is being achieved in the absence of case records. Under Article 13 of the Convention, the applicant complains about Ukraine’s alleged failure to guarantee effective domestic remedies in respect of the above violations. Under Article 34 of the Convention, the applicant complains of Ukraine’s alleged failure to comply with the interim measures indicated by the Court. Complaints against the Russian Federation Under Article 3 of the Convention, the applicant complains about the allegedly poor conditions of detention in Donetsk SIZO as well as the threats and humiliation by the “administration” of the SIZO for his pro-Ukrainian position. Under Article 5 of the Convention, the applicant complains of his allegedly illegal detention in Donetsk SIZO under the “DPR” control starting from 25   October 2014. Invoking Article 6 of the Convention, the applicant alleges that the “DPR courts” and, subsequently, “Russian courts” in Donetsk, which have been adjudicating his criminal case since 5 March 2015, are not “courts established by law” within the meaning of this provision. Invoking Article 8 of the Convention, the applicant claims that he has allegedly been denied his right to family life during his prolonged detention in Donetsk SIZO. Under the same provision the applicant also complains of him allegedly being coerced by “DPR authorities” to take up Russian nationality and join the Russian armed forces. Under Article 9 of the Convention, the applicant alleges that his right to manifest his religion has been violated by the “administration” of Donetsk SIZO which seized religious literature, banned discussions of Islam, and prohibited collective prayers and wearing a beard. Under Article 13 of the Convention the applicant complains that Russia does not (or did not at the time) recognise its control over the east of Ukraine, whereas the “DPR” could not offer him any effective legal remedies due to it being an unrecognised entity. Under Article 34 of the Convention, the applicant complains of Russia’s alleged failure to comply with the interim measures indicated by the Court.           QUESTIONS TO THE APPLICANT AND THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT 1.     Does the applicant’s complaint of the alleged failure of the Ukrainian Government to transfer him to GCT fall within the ambit of Article 3 of the Convention? If so, what is the scope of the Government’s obligations in this regard, both before and after the “DPR” established effective control over Donetsk? Has there been a breach of the applicant’s rights under Article 3 of the Convention by Ukraine? 2.     Is the applicant a potential victim of a breach of his Article 5 rights on account of the Ukrainian authorities having issued an arrest warrant in his name (see E.M.B. v. Romania (dec.), no. 4488/03, §§ 32-39,   28 September 2010)? 3.     Concerning the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 of the Convention about the Ukrainian courts’ prolonged failure to adjudicate his case as well as the uncertainty concerning the progress in the case and his status in that connection, was the procedure under Article 615-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (as amended by the Law   2751-IX on 16 November 2022) an effective domestic remedy? Was there a violation of Article 6 §   1 of the Convention in the applicant’s case ( Kurochenko and Zolotukhin v.   Ukraine [Committee], nos. 20936/16 and 53257/16, §§ 113-17, 11   February 2021)? 4.     Was there a violation of the applicant’s right of individual application, guaranteed by   Article   34 of the Convention, in regard to the Government’s alleged failure to comply with the interim measure indicated under   Rule   39 of the   Rules of Court? 5.     Were there violations of any other rights of the applicant, in particular, under the procedural limb of Article 3 and Article 13 of the Convention? QUESTIONS TO THE APPLICANT AND THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT 1.     Were the conditions of the applicant’s detention compatible with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention? Has the applicant been provided with adequate medical assistance and necessary medication? 2.     Was or is the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 §   1 of the Convention ( Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia [GC], nos. 8019/16 and 3 others, § 1122, 9 July 2025)? 3.     Were the criminal proceedings against the applicant – both before and after the “accession of the ‘Donetsk People’s Republic’ to the Russian Federation” – adjudicated by an “independent and impartial tribunal established by law” within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention ( Ukraine v. Russia ( re Crimea) [GC], nos. 20958/14 and 38334/18, §§   1010 ‑ 22, 25 June 2024, Mamasakhlisi and Others v. Georgia and Russia , nos.   29999/04 and 41424/04, §§ 425-26, 440 , 7 March 2023)? In this connection the applicant and the Government of the Russian Federation are requested to inform the Court whether there have been any developments in the case against the applicant and provide relevant documentary evidence concerning any such developments. 4.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his private life under Article 8 of the Convention on account of his allegation of being forced to obtain Russian citizenship and join the Russian armed forces ( Ukraine v. Russia ( re Crimea) [GC], cited above, §§ 1031-39)? 5.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of religion, within the meaning of Article   9 §   1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article   9 §   2 (see Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia (dec.) [GC], cited above, § 1275)? 6. Was there a violation of the applicant’s right of individual application, guaranteed by   Article   34 of the Convention, in regard to the Government’s alleged failure to comply with the interim measure indicated under   Rule   39 of the   Rules of Court? 7.     Were there violations of the other rights of the applicant, in particular, under the procedural limb of Article 3, as well as Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention?