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 } .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 } .s94E5961 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; 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 } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sB217F55E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:9pt } Published on 23 February 2026   FOURTH SECTION Applications nos. 70704/14 and 11527/15 Anton Oleksandrovych BOYEV against Russia and Ukraine and Vitaliy Viktorovych TKACHENKO against Russia and Ukraine lodged on 5 November 2014 and 17 June 2015 respectively 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 and ill-treatment of the applicants, members of the 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 3 December 2014 the applicants, as a part of a group of 25 captives, were transferred to the SSU archive premises measuring approximately 50   sq.   m. The premises had an influx of fresh air and daylight, but there was no heating. The applicants slept on archive shelves measuring 70 cm in width and 38 cm in height. 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 that they were unlawfully deprived of their liberty, ill-treated and detained in inhuman and degrading conditions. Complaints against both respondent States Referring to the procedural limb of Article 3 of the Convention the applicants 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, they 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 application no. 70704/14, did the applicant’s family member Nataliya Oleksiyivna Nagornyak have standing to lodge complaints with the Court on behalf of the applicant while he was being detained? (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, has the applicant in application no.   70704/14 shown the required degree of diligence in pursuing domestic remedies in the Russian Federation and in lodging his 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 the applicants, 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.     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 application no. 70704/14, did the applicant’s family member Nataliya Oleksiyivna Nagornyak have standing to lodge complaints with the Court on behalf of the applicant while he was being detained? (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, has the applicant in application no.   70704/14 shown the required degree of diligence in pursuing domestic remedies in Ukraine and in lodging his 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.     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, as required by Article 3 of the Convention (see Mocanu and Others v.   Romania [GC], nos. 10865/09 and 2 others, §§ 315-26, 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 Other alleged ill-treatment allegedly inflicted by “DPR” militants Investigation by Ukrainian / Russian authorities 1. 70704/14 Boyev v. Russia and Ukraine 05/11/2014 Anton Oleksandrovych BOYEV 1989 Ukrainian Alina Viktorivna PAVLYUK   --- / After the applicant’s release, a forensic medical examination was conducted on him. It revealed a fracture of the lower jaw on the right side, multiple bruises and abrasions resulting from the infliction of no fewer than 31 instances of physical force and the presence of a foreign body of metallic density measuring 0.4 cm in diameter in the left foot. It also established an injury to the second finger of his left hand and specified that the timing, nature, and severity of this injury were to be determined by a forensic medical examination conducted by a panel of experts. 1.     During one of the interrogations in the former SSU basement, the applicant was punched and kicked all over his body, beaten with rubber batons, and was shot at with a gas pistol. 2.     During another interrogation in mid-September 2014, he was undressed to the waist and photographed. Afterwards, he was taken to another room and where he was kicked and punched. As a result of the beating, his jaw was broken. 3.     The applicant was compelled to perform 200 or 300 push-ups and squats when he was taken to the outdoor toilet along with other captives. 4.     He was deprived of sleep as militants could appear at any moment during the night, shouting at and beating the captives. Criminal proceedings into the applicant’s abduction were instituted on 4   September 2014. The proceedings are ongoing. / The applicant lodged a criminal complaint dated 18 May 2015 with the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation (“IC RF”) about his internment and ill-treatment. He received a response dated 27   August 2015 with a recommendation to submit his complaint to the Ukrainian authorities. 2. 11527/15 Tkachenko v. Russia and Ukraine 17/06/2015 Vitaliy Viktorovych TKACHENKO 1976 Ukrainian The applicant was injured on 29   August 2014. / After his release the applicant was examined in a hospital. He was diagnosed with various repercussions of the injury received on 29 August 2014, as well as with reactive hepatitis, varicose disease of the left lower limb and retinal angiopathy. 1.     On two occasions the applicant was severely beaten with rubber batons on the arms and legs. As a result, the applicant could not walk for several days. 2.     The applicant was compelled to perform between 200 and 300 squats or push-ups and was beaten on the muscles engaged during the exercise. 3.     The applicant was threatened with execution by a military squad. 4.     He was deprived of sleep as militants could appear at any moment during the night, shouting at and beating the captives. Between 3 and 8 June 2015 the applicant’s lawyer filed several criminal complaints with the Ukrainian authorities, reporting the captivity and ill-treatment of the applicant. There has been no response. / The applicant filed a criminal complaint dated 15 May 2015 with the IC   RF, reporting his captivity and ill-treatment in the hands of “DPR” militants. He received a response dated 22   June 2015 with a recommendation to submit his complaint to the Ukrainian authorities.