CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 26 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 } .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 16 February 2026   SECOND SECTION Application no. 30073/21 N.G. and G.B. against Russia lodged on 15 June 2021 communicated on 26 January 2026 STATEMENT OF FACTS The application concerns G.B.’s apprehension along the administrative boundary line (ABL) between the breakaway region of South Ossetia [1] and the territory controlled by the Georgian government (see for the context Georgia v.   Russia   (IV) , no. 39611/18, §§   7-12, 9   April 2024), and his subsequent detention and alleged ill-treatment by the de facto South Ossetian forces in the Tskhinvali detention facility between November   2019 and November 2021. It appears that G.B. suffered a stroke shortly before being released, was transferred to the Georgian authorities in an unconscious state, and died three months later. The application was submitted by N.G. in her own name and on G.B.’s behalf, the latter having been detained at the time. G.B. was N.G.’s brother. Owing to her lack of access to the area beyond Georgia’s de facto control, N.G. was unable to obtain a signed authority form from him prior to his release and subsequent death. Relying on Articles   3, 5, 8 and 14 of the Convention, N.G. complained that G.B. had been unlawfully apprehended, detained and ill-treated by the de facto South Ossetian authorities, because of his Georgian ethnic origin, and that the Government bore responsibility for those acts and had failed to conduct an effective investigation. She also complained that there had been a breach of their right to private and family life on account of the de facto authorities’ allegedly absolute ban on contact with family members or the outside world during G.B.’s detention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     In so far as the application was submitted without G.B.’s signature, and given G.B.’s eventual release and death, are the complaints compatible with the provisions of the Convention ratione personae (see, for example, Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v.   Romania [GC], no.   47848/08, §§   97-100, ECHR 2014, and Karpylenko v.   Ukraine , no.   15509/12, §§   103-106, 11   February 2016, with further references)?   If so:   2.     Has there been a violation of Article   3 of the Convention on account of G.B.’s alleged ill-treatment during his 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 G.B.’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 G.B.’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.