CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 mars 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 } .s7D18490B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s5BDECA8 { width:5pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s99272BBB { margin-left:8.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s54B12A03 { width:6.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s452883D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s329183A { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:14pt; text-transform:uppercase } .fixListIndent { list-style-position: inside } Published on 30 March 2026   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 46076/15 Yuriy Mykolayovych VOROBYOV and Iryna Yuriyivna VOROBYOVA against Russia and Ukraine lodged on 8 September 2015 communicated on 13 March 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The complaints in the present application emanate from the armed conflict in the east of Ukraine. The applicants, a married couple, resided in Horlivka, the Donetsk region, and owned a house there. They also owned a house under construction in Donetsk, which was located next to the Donetsk airport. The applicants state that in April 2014 the control over Horlivka and Donetsk was taken by the “Donetsk People’s Republic” (“DPR”). Because of that, in May 2014 they relocated to Kyiv and were still residing there at the time of lodging their application with the Court. On 26 November 2014 the applicants’ unfinished house in Donetsk sustained serious shellfire damage. On 11 February 2015 their house in Horlivka, together with all of their personal belongings, went on fire as a result of an artillery shelling. The applicants do not explicitly attribute the attacks to either party of the armed conflict.    Resort to domestic legal remedies in Ukraine      Criminal law remedies On 30 March 2015 the applicants submitted criminal complaints in Ukraine. The Ukrainian authorities initiated criminal proceedings thereto, and the applicants were granted victim status. On 3 July 2016 the applicants requested that the purported actions in violation of their rights be qualified as terrorist acts and transferred to the Security Service of Ukraine for further investigation. This request was rejected on 18 July 2016. On 4 August 2016 the applicants submitted requests that they be interviewed as victims by the law enforcement authorities in Kyiv. On 17   January 2017 the applicants requested that the criminal proceedings in respect of their two houses be joined. According to the most recent information available to the Court, the criminal proceedings are still ongoing.      Civil law remedies On 2 August 2016 the applicants initiated civil proceedings before Ukrainian courts with regard to their houses in Donetsk and Horlivka. They relied on the Law “On combatting terrorism”, which obliged the State to compensate the damage caused by a terrorist act regardless of attribution of guilt. On 14 March 2017 a construction forensic expert assessment was carried out in the proceedings. On 16 December 2020 the Supreme Court of Ukraine ruled that the Government had failed to establish a domestic compensation mechanism for the damage caused in the course of the “anti-terrorist operation” in the east of Ukraine, and awarded each applicant 50,000 Ukrainian hryvnias (approximately 1,484 euros) in respect of that omission. The approach developed by the Supreme Court of Ukraine has been summarised in Futornyak v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 41678/20, § 21, 4 June 2024. In February 2021, however, the Ukrainian authorities refused to enforce the outstanding judgment due to the absence of funds and the lack of appropriate procedures.    Resort to domestic legal remedies in Russia On 5 August 2015 the applicants lodged a criminal complaint concerning the incidents mentioned above to the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation. On 28 September 2015 they received a response stating that a request for mutual legal assistance had been sent to the competent bodies of Ukraine in order to verify the information provided by the applicants. COMPLAINTS Invoking Article 8 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention against Ukraine and the Russian Federation, the applicants complain of the alleged damage to their property in Horlivka (house and personal belongings therein), as well as their property in Donetsk. Under Article 13 of the Convention, the applicants complain of the lack of effective legal remedies in Ukraine and in the Russian Federation in respect of the above violations of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     In light of the fact that the applicants were awarded compensation by the Ukrainian authorities, can they still claim to be victims of a violation of the Convention, within the meaning of Article   34? 2.     Have the applicants exhausted the available and effective domestic remedies in relation to the breaches invoked before the Court, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the civil remedy attempted by the applicants an effective remedy, within the meaning of Article 35, for the alleged violations of their rights in the present case? 3.     Have the applicants complied with the time-limit laid down in Article   35 § 1 of the Convention as in force on the date of introduction of their application? In particular, have they complied with the requirements of diligence and expedition in pursuing domestic remedies in the Respondent States and in bringing their case to the Court ( Melnichuk and Others v.   Romania , nos.   35279/10 and 34782/10, §§ 80-83, 5 May 2015, Akhvlediani and Others v. Georgia (dec.), nos. 22026/10 and 9 others, §§ 23-29, 9 April 2013, M.K. and Others v. Georgia and Russia [Committee], (dec.), nos.   16053/10 and 19   others, §§ 17-23, 12 March 2024)? 4.     Was there a violation by the respondent States of the applicants’ right to home, within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention, on account of the damage caused to their house in Horlivka ( Akdivar and Others v. Turkey , 16 September 1996, § 88, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996 ‑ IV, Khamzayev and Others v. Russia , no. 1503/02, §§ 217-20, 3 May 2011)? 5.     Have the respondent States interfered with the applicants’ peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1? If so, was that interference in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law ( Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia [GC], cited above, §§ 746 (and cases cited therein), 749-51, 769; and Kerimova and Others v.   Russia , nos.   17170/04 and 5 others, §§ 298-305, 3 May 2011)? 6.     Have any investigations been conducted by the authorities of the respondent States to establish the perpetrators of the shellings in question? The parties are requested to provide documentary evidence in support of their replies to this question. 7.     Did the applicants have at their disposal effective domestic remedies in the respondent States, as required by Article 13 of the Convention ( Esmukhambetov and Others v. Russia , no. 23445/03, § 159, 29 March 2011; and Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia [GC], cited above, §§   508 ‑ 9, 1616 ‑ 21)?