CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; 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 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s1E26B05F { 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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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 } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } Published on 2 March 2026   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 42561/18 Yuriy Volodymyrovych STAVTSEV against Russia and Ukraine and 14 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 11 February 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications emanate from the armed conflict in the east of Ukraine. On various dates between March 2017 and March 2021 the applicants’ relatives, all civilians (listed in the table below), were apprehended by representatives of the “Donetsk People’s Republic” (“DPR”) in non ‑ government controlled territory of Ukraine. Since then they have been held in various penitentiary facilities in the Donetsk region with very limited or no contact with the outside world. In view of the applicants’ relatives’ alleged inability to have contact with the outside world, the present applications were introduced by the applicants on their behalf. “Criminal proceedings” against the applicants’ relatives Following their apprehension, most of the applicants’ relatives were placed under “administrative arrest” for a period of thirty to sixty days on suspicion of having committed criminal offences under the “DPR Criminal Code”. Within those thirty and sixty days, “investigative bodies” of the “DPR” opened “criminal cases” against the applicants’ relatives, usually charging them with the offences of espionage, treason, sabotage or terrorist activities. Most of them were placed in pre-trial detention pending “trial” by the “DPR courts”. The applicants’ relatives’ ill-treatment and the lack of medical care in detention The applicants’ relatives in applications nos. 42561/18, 56756/18, 2/19, 8387/20, 14687/21, 19855/21, 26020/21, 35733/21 and 61682/21 have a number of chronic health problems which, if not treated, may allegedly cause them physical pain or put their lives at risk. Their problems are exacerbated by the lack of proper nutrition and poor conditions of their detention. The applicants also claim that their relatives have either been tortured or are at serious risk of ill-treatment to extract confessions from them. It is also claimed that the prolonged detention of the applicants’ relatives causes them severe psychological and physical harm. The applicants’ suffering The applicants claim that the prolonged detention of their relatives, which is not accompanied by any procedural guarantees, and the uncertainty surrounding their fates in detention, cause them severe mental anguish and suffering. The applicants’ relatives’ contact with the outside world It is claimed that most of the applicants’ relatives have not had any contact with their families or the outside world since the day of their apprehension. The applicant in application no. 56756/18 saw his relative only once and for five minutes. The applicants in applications nos. 42561/18 and 2/19 were able to see their relatives twice in the presence of the “‘DPR’ Ministry of State Security” (“MGB”), which impeded free communication. The applicant in application no. 48058/18 was able to see his detained relative only once after approximately three years of detention. The applicant in application no.   35733/21 saw her detained relatives once in the presence of “MGB officers”, and the latter heavily restricted the subjects they were discussing during the visit. Some applicants were able to transfer parcels containing food, clothing or medication to their relatives. Domestic remedies attempted in Ukraine and the Russian Federation The applicants made official complaints in Ukraine, especially to the National Police of Ukraine and the Security Service of Ukraine. They also submitted criminal complaints to the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation. Interim measures granted by the Court Between September 2018 and December 2021, at the requests of the applicants, the Court indicated interim measures, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, to the respondent Governments and asked them to ensure respect for the applicants’ relatives’ Convention rights including, where appropriate, respect for the security of person and/or for provision of medical care. In their responses the Russian Government argued that the applicants’ relatives were not within their jurisdiction. The Government of Ukraine stated that all possible measures were being taken to establish the circumstances of the applicants’ relatives’ unlawful deprivation of liberty and to secure their release from captivity. The interim measures indicated by the Court are still in force. COMPLAINTS Complaints against the Russian Federation Invoking Article 3 of the Convention on behalf of their relatives, the applicants in applications nos. 42561/18, 56756/18, 2/19, 8387/20, 14687/21, 19855/21, 26020/21, 35733/21 and 61682/21 claim that the lack of medical care in detention, combined with the lack of proper nutrition and poor conditions of detention, exacerbated their relatives’ health problems and put their lives and health at risk. All applicants allege, on behalf of their relatives, that their relatives have been tortured or are at risk of being ill-treated in order to extract confessions from them. They also claim that their relatives have been subjected to severe psychological trauma caused by prolonged unacknowledged detention with no meaningful contacts with their families. Additionally, all applicants claim on behalf of their relatives that Russia failed to initiate an investigation into their criminal complaints. All applicants also invoke Article 3 of the Convention on their own behalf, stating that their relatives’ prolonged and unlawful detention causes them severe mental anguish and suffering that reach the threshold of Article   3. Relying on Article 5 of the Convention, the applicants claim on behalf of their relatives that the latter’s detention under the control of the “DPR” has been arbitrary and devoid of any procedural safeguards guaranteed by Article   5. Lastly, under Article 13 of the Convention, the applicants claim on behalf of their relatives that no effective legal remedies existed in the Russian Federation in respect of the above violations of the Convention. Complaints against Ukraine Invoking the procedural aspect of Article 3 in conjunction with Article   13 of the Convention, the applicants argue, on behalf of their relatives, that Ukraine has failed to comply with its positive obligations to investigate their relatives’ detention and alleged ill-treatment.     QUESTIONS TO THE APPLICANTS AND THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT 1.     Are there any exceptional circumstances in the present cases justifying the applicants’ standing to lodge applications on behalf of their relatives in the absence of any written authority to do so (see Ghazaryan and Bayramyan v.   Azerbaijan , no. 33050/18, §§ 71-81, 5 October 2023)?   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?   3.     As regards the applications nos. 42561/18, 56756/18, 2/19, 8387/20, 14687/21, 19855/21, 26020/21, 35733/21 and 61682/21, have the Russian Government breached their obligation to provide the applicants’ relatives with medical assistance, as required by Article 3 of the Convention?   4.     Have the applicants’ relatives been subjected to ill-treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention?   5.     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’ relatives, 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)?   6.     Have the applicants themselves been subjected to inhuman treatment contrary to Article 3 on account of their suffering stemming from their relatives’ apprehension and prolonged detention ( Orhan v.   Turkey , no.   25656/94, § 359-360, 18   June 2002)?   7.     Were or are the applicants’ relatives deprived of their 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)?   8.     Did the applicants’ relatives have at their disposal effective domestic remedies for the above complaints, as required by Article   13 of the Convention? QUESTIONS TO THE APPLICANTS AND THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT 1.     Are there any exceptional circumstances in the present cases justifying the applicants’ standing to lodge applications on behalf of their relatives in the absence of any written authority to do so (see Ghazaryan and Bayramyan v.   Azerbaijan , no. 33050/18, §§ 71-81, 5 October 2023)?   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?   3. Did the Ukrainian Government have a positive obligation under the procedural limb of Article 3 of the Convention to investigate the alleged abduction and ill-treatment of the applicants’ relatives ( Hanan v. Germany [GC], no. 4871/16, §§ 198-210, 16 February 2021; Abdulaal Naser and Others v. Denmark , no. 46571/22, §§ 112-31, 21 October 2025)? If so, has the Ukrainian Government complied with their respective obligations? If not, did the applicants’ relatives have at their disposal effective domestic remedies, as required by Article   13 of the Convention? REQUEST FOR INFORMATION TO BE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANTS AND THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT The applicants and the Government of the Russian Federation are requested to provide updated information, supported by documentary evidence, with regard to the following questions:   1.     Are the applicants’ relatives still being detained? If so, the parties are requested to clarify where they are being detained and what are the material conditions of their detention.   2.     What is the current state of the applicants’ relatives’ health? The parties are requested to inform the Court about the medical examination and care, if any, that they have received while in detention.   3.     The parties are requested to inform the Court about any developments with regard to the “criminal proceedings” introduced against the applicants’ relatives in the “DPR”.   4.     The parties are requested to provide a detailed clarification of whether the applicants’ relatives have been visited in detention by any family members, legal representatives, or medical professionals, and whether any letters or other means of communication have been received from them.     APPENDIX List of cases:   No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant   The applicant’s relative(s) and the degree of kinship   Represented by 1. 42561/18 Stavtsev v. Russia and Ukraine 08/09/2018 Yuriy Volodymyrovych STAVTSEV 1956 Vyshgorod Ukrainian The applicant’s son Yevgen Yuriyovych STAVTSEV 1985 Vyshgorod Ukrainian Vitaliy Mykhaylovych KHEKALO 2. 44936/18 Boranova v. Russia and Ukraine 24/09/2018 Valentyna Grygorivna BORANOVA 1963 Stepne Ukrainian   The applicant’s son Stanyslav Vasylyovych BORANOV 1986 Stepne Ukrainian Mykhaylo Oleksandrovych TARAKHKALO 3. 48058/18 Farber v. Russia and Ukraine 12/10/2018 Oleksandr Vyacheslavovych FARBER 1999 Donetsk Ukrainian The applicant’s father Vyacheslav Oleksandrovych FARBER 1964 Donetsk Ukrainian Vitaliy Mykhaylovych KHEKALO 4. 56756/18 Nosov v. Russia and Ukraine 04/12/2018 Oleksandr Sergiyovych NOSOV 1991 Kyiv Ukrainian   The applicant’s father Sergiy Petrovych NOSOV 1958 Vasylivka Ukrainian Mykhaylo Oleksandrovych TARAKHKALO 5. 2/19 Gorobets v. Russia and Ukraine 28/12/2018 Valentyna Sergiyivna GOROBETS 1961 Stadnitsa Ukrainian   The applicant’s son Vasyl Ivanovych GOROBETS 1985 Donetsk Ukrainian Vitaliy Mykhaylovych KHEKALO 6. 7877/19 Taran v. Russia and Ukraine 08/02/2019 Nadiya Petrivna TARAN 1951 Donetsk Ukrainian   The applicant’s son Oleg Valeriyovych TARAN 1984 Donetsk Ukrainian Vitaliy Mykhaylovych KHEKALO 7. 8357/20 Shapovalova v. Russia and Ukraine 10/02/2020 Ganna Georgiyivna SHAPOVALOVA 1941 Donetsk Ukrainian   The applicant’s son Yuriy Valeriyovych SHAPOVALOV 1964 Donetsk Ukrainian Vitaliy Mykhaylovych KHEKALO 8. 8387/20 Zakrevska v. Russia and Ukraine 10/02/2020 Galyna Viktorivna ZAKREVSKA 1969 Dovga Balka Ukrainian   The applicant’s brother Vyacheslav Viktorovych ZASYPKA 1977 Dovga Balka Ukrainian Vitaliy Mykhaylovych KHEKALO 9. 48641/20 Tkachenko v. Russia and Ukraine 05/11/2020 Nataliya Oleksiyivna TKACHENKO 1975 Koryukivka Ukrainian   The applicant’s husband Oleksandr Mykolayovych OTVYORTKIN 1975 Donetsk Ukrainian Alina Viktorivna PAVLYUK 10. 14687/21 Akopyan v. Russia and Ukraine 17/03/2021 Yurik Robertovych AKOPYAN 1993 Kramatorsk Donetsk region Ukrainian   The applicant’s brother Mkhitar Robertovych AKOPYAN 1990 Kramatorsk Donetsk region Ukrainian Vitaliy Mykhaylovych KHEKALO 11. 19855/21 Utkina v. Russia and Ukraine 16/04/2021 Tetyana Vitaliyivna UTKINA 1979 Volnovakha Ukrainian   The applicant’s husband Viktor Ivanovych UTKIN 1961 Volnovakha Ukrainian Vitaliy Mykhaylovych KHEKALO 12. 26020/21 Kiryushkin v. Russia and Ukraine 24/05/2021 Oleksiy Volodymyrovych KIRYUSHKIN 1955 Vugledar Ukrainian   The applicant’s son-in-law Igor Valeriyovych POGOLDIN 1982 Donetsk Ukrainian Vitaliy Mykhaylovych KHEKALO 13. 35733/21 Polivoda v. Russia and Ukraine 15/07/2021 Tetyana Grygorivna POLIVODA 1951 Yasynuvata Ukrainian   The applicant’s daughter Olena Vasylivna ZAYTSEVA 1971 Verkhnyotoretske Ukrainian   The applicant’s grandson Vladyslav Sergiyovych ZAYTSEV 2000 Verkhnyotoretske Ukrainian Vitaliy Mykhaylovych KHEKALO 14. 61676/21 Vyshnytska v. Russia and Ukraine 23/12/2021 Svitlana Volodymyrivna VYSHNYTSKA 1962 Donetsk Ukrainian   The applicant’s son Volodymyr Oleksandrovych VYSHNYTSKYY 1988 Donetsk Ukrainian Vitaliy Mykhaylovych KHEKALO 15. 61682/21 Sydorenko v. Russia and Ukraine 23/12/2021 Svitlana Petrivna SYDORENKO 1960 Donetsk Ukrainian   The applicant’s son Eduard Mykolayovych MAYOROV 1978 Donetsk Ukrainian Vitaliy Mykhaylovych KHEKALO