CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 février 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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s2044A09A { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .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 } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s65E06E64 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; 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 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 23 February 2026   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 60774/14 Volodymyr Vasylyovych GUNKO against Russia and Ukraine and 10 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 4 February 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE Circumstances of the cases The applications arise from the international armed conflict in the east of Ukraine that began in the spring of 2014. They concern the alleged unlawful detention, ill-treatment and forced labour of members of a volunteer battalion “Donbas” (supporting the Ukrainian Armed Forces), by Russian agents in 2014. The applicants were captured by Russian Armed Forces on 30   August 2014. On the night of 30 August 2014 they slept in the open air in a Russian Armed Forces camp. On 31 August 2014, together with other captured members of the volunteer battalion “Donbas”, they were transferred to units composed of “Donetsk People’s Republic” (“DPR”) militants. From there, they were transferred to the former building of the Department of the Security Service of Ukraine in Donetsk region (“SSU”). The captives were lined up in rows in the building’s inner courtyard and were surrounded by journalists and bystanders. They were verbally abused and humiliated while their ordeal was filmed by the journalists. Afterwards, the applicants were taken to the former SSU building’s basement. They submitted that at the entrance they were kicked and forced to trample on the Ukrainian flag. The premises were damp and lacked natural light; the number of sleeping places was insufficient. The ventilation and sewage systems were broken and the nutrition was grossly insufficient. On 16 October 2014, the applicants were transferred to Ilovaisk to rebuild the town which had been damaged during the hostilities. The “DPR” militants first placed the applicants in a garage with no toilet, sink or sleeping facilities. The next day the applicants were allowed to accommodate themselves in a half-destroyed building. The applicants fitted glasses to the windows, built an outdoor toilet and a bathtub in the premises. They arranged makeshift sleeping places and cooked for themselves. During their internment in Ilovaisk, the applicants (except for Mr   Guts in application no. 28813/15) were routinely compelled to perform labour tasks related to the reconstruction of the town under the supervision of armed militants. Mr   Guts (application no. 28813/15) was a medical orderly and was compelled to provide medical aid to other captives; he was not forced to perform labour tasks in Ilovaisk. The applicants were released on 26 December 2014. Further details regarding the applications are set out in the appendix below. Complaints Complaints against the Russian Government Relying on Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention, the applicants complain either expressly or in substance that they were unlawfully deprived of their liberty, ill-treated and detained in inhuman and degrading conditions. Under Article 4 of the Convention, the applicants (except in application no.   28813/15) complain that they were subjected to forced labour. Complaints against both respondent States Referring to the procedural limb of Article 3 of the Convention the applicants (except those in applications nos.   21359/15 and 32362/15) complain that the domestic authorities of the respondent States failed to carry out an effective investigation into the alleged ill-treatment. Invoking Article 13 of the Convention, all the applicants also complain that they did not have effective domestic remedies in respect of their Convention complaints. QUESTIONS TO THE APPLICANTS AND THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT 1.     As regards the applications nos. 60774/14 and 67769/14, did the applicants’ family members have standing to lodge complaints with the Court on behalf of the victims (see K.J. and C.C. v. Russia , nos. 27584/20 and 39768/20, § 62, 19 March 2024)?   2.     Have the applicants complied with the requirements set forth in Article   35 § 1 of the Convention, as in force on the dates of introduction of their applications? In this connection, have the applicants in applications nos.   60774/14, 67679/14 and 49618/17 shown the required degree of diligence in pursuing domestic remedies in the Russian Federation and in lodging their complaints with the Court without undue delay (see, mutatis mutandis , Stanimirović v.   Serbia , no.   26088/06, §§ 30-31, 18 October 2011; Melnichuk and Others v.   Romania , nos. 35279/10 and 34782/10, §§ 80-83, 5 May 2015; and Samadov v.   Armenia (dec.), no. 36606/08, § 18, 26   January 2021)? 3.     Have the applicants been subjected to ill-treatment, in breach of Article   3 of the Convention (see Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia [GC], nos. 8019/16 and 3 others, § 1083, 9 July 2025)? 4.       Having regard to the procedural protection from inhuman and degrading treatment, have effective investigations been conducted by the Russian authorities into the alleged ill-treatment of all the applicants (except the applicants in applications nos. 21359/15 and 32362/15), as required by Article 3 of the Convention ( see Mocanu and Others v. Romania [GC], nos.   10865/09 and 2 others, §§ 315-326, ECHR 2014 (extracts)?   5.     Did the material conditions of the applicants’ detention amount to inhuman or degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention (ibid., § 1080; see also Muršić v. Croatia [GC], no. 7334/13, §§   136-41, 20   October 2016)?   6.     Were the applicants deprived of their liberty in breach of Article   5 §   1 of the Convention (see Hassan v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29750/09, §§   104-7, ECHR 2014)?   7.     Do the facts complained of by all the applicants (except for the applicant in application no.   28813/15) amount to a violation of Article 4 of the Convention (see Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia , cited above, §   1093 and 1099)?   8.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their Convention complaints, as required by Article   13 of the Convention? QUESTIONS TO THE APPLICANTS AND THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT   1.     As regards the applications nos. 60774/14 and 67769/14, did the applicants’ family members have standing to lodge complaints with the Court on behalf of the victims (see K.J. and C.C. v. Russia , nos. 27584/20 and 39768/20, § 62, 19 March 2024)?   2.     Have the applicants complied with the requirements set forth in Article   35 § 1 of the Convention, as in force on the dates of introduction of their applications? In this connection, have the applicants in applications nos. 60774/14, 67679/14 and 49618/17 shown the required degree of diligence in pursuing domestic remedies in Ukraine and in lodging their complaints with the Court without undue delay (see, mutatis mutandis , Stanimirović v. Serbia , no.   26088/06, §§   30-31, 18 October 2011; Melnichuk and Others v. Romania , nos. 35279/10 and 34782/10, §§ 80-83, 5 May 2015; and Samadov v. Armenia (dec.), no.   36606/08, § 18, 26 January 2021)? As regards the applicants in applications nos. 67679/14, 12080/15, 20212/15 and 28813/15, have the applicants raised their complaints of ill ‑ treatment before the Ukrainian authorities?   3.     Having regard to the procedural protection from inhuman and degrading treatment, have effective investigations been conducted by the Ukrainian authorities into the alleged ill-treatment of the applicants (except the applicants in applications nos. 21359/15 and 32362/15), as required by Article 3 of the Convention (see Mocanu and Others v. Romania [GC], nos.   10865/09 and 2 others, §§ 315-326, ECHR 2014 (extracts)? 4.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their Convention complaints, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?     APPENDIX List of cases:   No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Nationality Represented by Injuries before the detention / Medical treatment after release Further complaints of ill-treatment allegedly inflicted by “DPR” militants Investigation by Ukrainian and/or Russian authorities 1. 60774/14 Gunko v. Russia and Ukraine 05/09/2014 Volodymyr Vasylyovych GUNKO 1989 Ukrainian Alina Viktorivna PAVLYUK --- / --- 1. On 31 August 2014 in the SSU courtyard while the cameras were not filming him the applicant was punched and kicked and beaten with rubber batons. 2. While detained in the SSU basement the applicant was beaten with police batons. 3. On one occasion the militants hit the applicant on the head for having made direct eye contact and knocked his tooth out. 4. The applicant was forced to perform 200 squats. 5. The applicant was threatened that his loved ones would be raped and killed. 6. While interned in Ilovaisk, on one occasion the applicant was hit several times by a guard. 1. Criminal proceedings into the applicant’s abduction were instituted by the Ukrainian authorities on 8 September 2014. The proceedings are ongoing. 2. On 29 June 2017 the applicant lodged with the Ukrainian police and the General Prosecutor’s Office in Ukraine criminal complaints reporting the ill-treatment to which he was subjected. There has been no response. 3. The applicant lodged a crime report dated 29 June 2017 with the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation (“IC RF”) about his internment, ill-treatment and forced labour. There has been no response. 2. 67679/14 Tomilin v. Russia and Ukraine 15/10/2014 Volodymyr Petrovych TOMILIN 1977 Ukrainian Alina Viktorivna PAVLYUK --- / --- 1. The applicant was threatened with execution by a military squad. 2. The applicant was beaten punched and kicked and beaten with rifle butts on different parts of the body. 1. Criminal proceedings into the applicant’s abduction were instituted on 6 October 2014 by the Ukrainian authorities. The proceedings are ongoing. 2. The applicant lodged a crime report dated 7 July 2017 with the IC RF about his detention, ill-treatment and forced labour. There has been no response. 3. 11538/15 Pokumeyko v. Russia and Ukraine 02/06/2015 Ruslan Ivanovych POKUMEYKO 1976 Ukrainian Alina Viktorivna PAVLYUK On 29 August 2014 the applicant suffered a mine blast injury. / After his release the applicant was examined in a hospital. He was diagnosed with various post-traumatic conditions caused by the blast injury sustained on 29 August 2014, and with repeated spine injuries sustained in September–October 2014, as well as with contusion of the soft tissues of both lower limbs and contusion of both knee joints. 1. While interned in the SSU basement the applicant was kicked, punched and beaten with batons on multiple occasions and with a book on one occasion. 2. The applicant was forced to perform physical exercise to the point of loss of consciousness. 3. In Ilovaisk, the applicant was threatened with execution and a burst of automatic gunfire was fired over his head. 1. Criminal proceedings into the applicant’s suspected death were instituted by the Ukrainian authorities on 20   October 2014. The proceedings are ongoing. 2. The applicant reported ill-treatment to the Security Service of Ukraine on 6 April 2015. There has been no response. 3. The applicant lodged a crime report dated 9 April 2015 about his detention, ill-treatment and forced labour with the IC RF. He received a response dated 19 June 2015 with a recommendation to submit his complaint to the Ukrainian authorities. 4. 12080/15 Marynets v. Russia and Ukraine 23/06/2015 Valeriy Ivanovych MARYNETS 1977 Ukrainian Mykhaylo Oleksandrovych TARAKHKALO On 29 August 2014 the applicant was wounded in the head and suffered a concussion. / After his release the applicant was examined in a hospital. He was diagnosed with various post-traumatic conditions caused by the injury sustained on 29   August 2014, as well as with pneumonia, acute bronchitis, chronical gastritis, duodenitis and cholecystitis, urinary salt diathesis, chronic salpingo-otitis, retinal angiopathy of both eyes, maculopathy of both eyes and eyelid dermatitis. 1. Whilst held in the former SSU basement the applicant was beaten with batons and rifle butts and shot at with a rubber-bullet pistol. 2. The applicant was subjected to a mock execution. 3. The applicant was forced to perform physical exercises, such as 200 squats, 100 push-ups and some ab exercises, irrespective of his health problems. 4. In Ilovaisk, the applicant was threatened with execution by a military squad. 1. Criminal proceedings into the applicant’s abduction were instituted by the Ukrainian authorities on 13 September 2014. 2. The applicant lodged a crime report dated 11 June 2015 with the IC RF, detailing his detention, ill-treatment and forced labour sustained in captivity. He received a response dated 26   March 2015 (sic) addressed to another person with a recommendation to submit his complaint to the Ukrainian authorities. 5. 20212/15 Fomenko v. Russia and Ukraine 14/04/2015 Vitaliy Sergiyovich FOMENKO 1979 Ukrainian Alina Viktorivna PAVLYUK --- / After his release the applicant was examined in a hospital. He was diagnosed with acute bronchitis, acute pharyngitis, right-sided sciatica, osteochondrosis, cholecystitis and asthenoneurotic syndrome. 1. While interned in the SSU basement the applicant was forced to perform physical exercises, such as squats and more than 300 push-ups in one set. When the applicant refused to continue, he was beaten with a rubber baton. 2. The applicant was threatened with execution by a military squad. 1. The applicant lodged a crime report dated 22 June 2015 with the IC RF, detailing his detention, ill-treatment and forced labour sustained in captivity. There has been no response. 6. 21359/15 Stolbyeryev v. Russia and Ukraine 24/04/2015 Oleg Fedorovych STOLBYERYEV 1974 Ukrainian Alina Viktorivna PAVLYUK --- / After his release the applicant was diagnosed with acute reaction to stress. 1. During one of the interrogations the applicant was severely beaten with a baton. 2. While interned in the SSU basement the applicant was compelled to perform physical exercises, such as 200-300 squats and push-ups. 1. The applicant reported ill-treatment to the Security Service of Ukraine on 9 April 2015. There has been no response. 2. The applicant lodged a crime report dated 12 March 2015 with the IC RF, detailing his detention, ill-treatment and forced labour sustained in captivity. He received a response dated 28 April 2015 with the recommendation to submit his complaint to the Ukrainian authorities. 7. 28312/15 Zherzhevskyy v. Russia and Ukraine 29/05/2015 Sergiy Oleksandrovych ZHERZHEVSKYY 1987 Ukrainian Alina Viktorivna PAVLYUK --- / --- 1. While interned in the SSU basement the applicant was threatened with execution by a military squad. 2. The applicant was compelled to perform hundreds of squats and push-ups. 3. While interned in the SSU basement, the applicant was beaten by guards. 4. In Ilovaisk, the applicant was threatened with execution by a military squad. 1. The applicant’s lawyer lodged several criminal complaints, dated 12 March 2015, with the Ukrainian authorities reporting the ill-treatment sustained by the applicant in captivity. He received a response from the Security Service of Ukraine informing that his complaints were added to the existing set of criminal proceedings. 2. The applicant lodged a crime report dated 12 March 2015 with the IC RF, detailing his detention, ill-treatment and forced labour. The applicant received a response dated 19   June 2015, with a recommendation to submit his complaint to the Ukrainian authorities. 8. 28813/15 Guts v. Russia and Ukraine 04/06/2015 Sergiy Tymofiyovych GUTS 1962 Ukrainian Alina Viktorivna PAVLYUK On 28 August 2014 the applicant sustained a concussion. / After his release the applicant was examined in a hospital. He was diagnosed with сerebral atherosclerosis, circulatory encephalopathy, osteochondrosis, neuritis, chronic cholecystitis, chronic pancreatitis, chronic pyelonephritis, thyroid cyst, head injury and foreign object (metal) in the right parietal area of the head. While interrogated in the SSU basement, the applicant was compelled to perform more than 200 squats and push-ups. 1. Criminal proceedings into the applicant’s abduction were instituted on 18 September 2014 by the Ukrainian authorities. The proceedings are ongoing. 2. The applicant lodged a crime report dated 16 April 2014 with the IC RF, detailing his detention, ill-treatment and forced labour in Ilovaisk. He received a response dated 19   June 2015, with a recommendation to submit his complaint to the Ukrainian authorities. 9. 32340/15 Morozov v. Russia and Ukraine 26/06/2015 Pavlo Yevgeniyovych MOROZOV 1972 Ukrainian Mykhaylo Oleksandrovych TARAKHKALO --- / --- While detained in the SSU basement the applicant received blows on various parts of his body on several occasions. 1. The applicant’s lawyer lodged several criminal complaints dated 25 June 2015 with the Ukrainian authorities reporting the ill-treatment sustained in captivity. There has been no response. 2. The applicant’s lawyer lodged a crime report dated 25   June 2015 with the IC   RF, detailing his detention, ill-treatment and forced labour in Ilovaisk. He received a response dated 26 March 2015 (sic) addressed to another person, with a recommendation to submit his complaint to the Ukrainian authorities. 10. 32362/15 Oliynyk v. Russia and Ukraine 26/06/2015 Andriy Vitaliyovych OLIYNYK 1976 Ukrainian --- On 29 August 2014 the applicant sustained a mine blast injury. / After his release the applicant was examined in a hospital. He was diagnosed with various post-traumatic conditions caused by the injury sustained on 29   August 2014, as well as with rhinitis, retinal angiopathy and osteochondrosis. 1. While interned in the SSU basement the applicant was systematically beaten, including on several occasions with a rifle butt and a rubber baton. 2. The applicant was threatened with execution by a military squad. 3. The applicant was compelled to perform push-ups and squats to the point of physical collapse. Afterwards he was beaten on the legs with a rubber baton. 4. While detained in Ilovaisk, the applicant was threatened with execution by a military squad and warned that he would be shot in the legs if he does not work hard enough. --- 11. 49618/17 Sergiyenko v. Russia and Ukraine 29/06/2017 Oleksiy Oleksandrovych SERGIYENKO 1983 Ukrainian Alina Viktorivna PAVLYUK --- / --- The applicant was kicked, punched and beaten with sticks. 1. Criminal proceedings into the applicant’s abduction were instituted by the Ukrainian authorities on 16 October 2014. 2. The applicant reported ill-treatment to the General Prosecutor’s Office of Ukraine on 12 April 2017. There has been no response. 3. The applicant lodged a crime report dated 12 April 2017 with the IC RF. Detailing his detention, ill-treatment and forced labour in Ilovaisk. He received a response dated 18   May 2017 informing him that the IC RF prepared a request for legal assistance to the Ukrainian authorities under the Convention on Legal Assistance and Legal Relations in Civil, Family and Criminal Matters.