CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Published on 9 February 2026   SECOND SECTION Application no. 60594/21 M.K. and M.Ch. against Russia lodged on 16 December 2021 communicated on 19 January 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the second applicant’s apprehension along the administrative boundary line (ABL) between the breakaway region of South Ossetia [1] and the territory controlled by the Georgian government and his subsequent detention by the de facto South Ossetian forces in Tskhinvali between 10   December 2021 and 25   August 2023. The application was submitted by M.Ch.’s uncle, M.K., during M.Ch.’s detention. Following his release, M.Ch. notified the Court that he maintained the application. Relying on Articles 3, 5, 8, 13 and 14 of the Convention the applicants complained that M.Ch. had been unlawfully arrested, detained and ill-treated by the de facto South Ossetian authorities on account of his Georgian ethnic origin and that the Government bore responsibility for those acts and had failed to conduct an effective investigation. They also complained that there had been a breach of their right to respect for private and family life on account of the de facto authorities’ allegedly absolute ban on contact with family members or the outside world during M.Ch.’s detention.       QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Does M.K. have standing to complain in respect of circumstances pertaining to M.Ch. (see, for the general principles, Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v.   Romania [GC], no.   47848/08, §§   97-100, ECHR 2014)?   2.     Has there been a violation of Article   3 of the Convention on account of M.Ch.’s alleged ill-treatment in detention and the alleged absence of an effective investigation in this regard (see Georgia v.   Russia   (IV) , no.   39611/18, §§   38-46, 9   April 2024)?   3.     Has there been a violation of Article   5 of the Convention on account of M.Ch.’s arrest and detention (see Georgia v.   Russia (IV) , cited above, §§   52 ‑ 55)?   4.     Has there been a violation of the applicants’ rights under Article 8 of the Convention on account of the allegedly absolute ban on contact with family members or the outside world during M.Ch.’s detention (see, for the general principles, Khoroshenko v.   Russia [GC], no.   41418/04, §§   116-22, ECHR 2015)?   5.     Did the applicants have an effective remedy at their disposal, as required by Article 13 of the Convention, in respect of their complaints (see, for the general principles, Z and Others v.   the United Kingdom [GC], no.   29392/95, §   109, ECHR 2001-V)?   6.     Did the applicants suffer discrimination in the enjoyment of their Convention rights, in breach of Article 14 of the Convention, on grounds of their Georgian ethnic origin (see, for the general principles, Ukraine v.   Russia ( re Crimea) [GC], nos.   20958/14 and 38334/18, §§   1181-82, 25   June 2024)? [1] The term “South Ossetia” refers to a region of Georgia which is currently outside the de facto control of the Georgian Government.