CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 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 } .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 } .s54B12A03 { width:6.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .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 } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s3B4DFD6B { margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; text-transform:none } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s2D726B78 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .sEC2C3242 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.4pt 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 } .s6CDC6B81 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .fixListIndent { list-style-position: inside } Published on 30 March 2026   FOURTH SECTION Applications nos. 42552/19 and 64357/19 Nadiya Oleksandrivna ATAMANCHUK against Russia and Ukraine lodged on 12 August 2019 and 20 November 2019 respectively communicated on 12 March 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications emanate from the armed conflict in the east of Ukraine. The applicant and her husband, Mr Vitaliy Atamanchuk, are civilians and were residing in Donetsk, in non ‑ government controlled territory of Ukraine, and openly expressed their pro-Ukrainian views. On 4 September 2018 they were apprehended at their house by representatives of the “Donetsk People’s Republic” (“DPR”). According to the most recent information available to the Court, the applicant’s husband remains in detention in the “DPR”, allegedly with no contact with the outside world. In view of that, the present applications were introduced by the applicant, both on her own behalf and on behalf of her husband (further details are provided in the table below).      The applicant’s detention in the Donetsk pre-trial detention centre (“Donetsk SIZO”) On 4 September 2018 representatives of the “DPR” put a plastic bag on the applicant’s head and took her to the building of the “Ministry of Interior of the ‘DPR’”. She was held there for 24 hours without food or water, and interrogated. On the next day she was transferred to Donetsk SIZO. The conditions of the applicant’s detention allegedly included overcrowding, poor nutrition, low air temperature, high humidity, and the lack of personal hygiene items. The applicant also did not receive the medical care that she required. The applicant was released on 5 October 2018.      “Criminal proceedings” against the applicant’s husband and his ill ‑ treatment in Donetsk SIZO The applicant’s husband, apprehended at the same time as her, remained detained at the Donetsk pre-trial detention centre, with no contact with the outside world. He was charged with the offence of espionage under the “Criminal Code of the ‘DPR’” and subsequently transferred to Makiivka penal colony no. 32. On 7 October 2019 he was found “guilty” and sentenced to 17 years of imprisonment. The applicant claims that her husband is at risk of being ill-treated by the “officials of the ‘DPR’” to extract a confession from him. He also has a number of chronic health problems which cause him physical pain and allegedly, if not treated, may put his life at risk.      The suffering of the applicant in relation to her husband’s detention The applicant claims that her husband’s apprehension in her presence as well as his alleged ill-treatment and prolonged detention, which is not accompanied with any procedural guarantees, cause her severe mental anguish and suffering.      Interim measure indicated by the Court in respect of the applicant’s husband (application no. 42552/19) On 13 August 2019, at the request of the applicant, the Court indicated an interim measure, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, to the respondent Governments and asked them to ensure respect for the applicant’s husband’s Convention rights. In their response the Russian Government argued that the applicant’s husband was not within their jurisdiction. The Government of Ukraine stated that all possible measures were being taken to establish the circumstances of the applicant’s husband’s unlawful deprivation of liberty and to secure his release. The interim measure indicated by the Court is still in force.      Domestic remedies attempted in Ukraine and in the Russian Federation With regard to the applicant’s husband’s apprehension, she made official complaints to the National Police of Ukraine and the Security Service of Ukraine. She also submitted criminal complaints to the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation. With regard to her own apprehension, the applicant submitted a criminal complaint to the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation on 6 July 2019. On 9 September 2019 she received a response 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 applicant. On an unknown date, but no later than 7 July 2019, the applicant also informed the Ukrainian authorities of her apprehension. She was recognised as a victim and interviewed in the criminal proceedings. According to the most recent information available to the Court, these proceedings are ongoing. COMPLAINTS      Complaints against the Russian Federation Invoking Article 3 of the Convention, the applicant complains of the ill ‑ treatment to which she was subjected while in detention. She also complains of inadequate conditions of her detention and the lack of medical care that she required for her chronic illnesses. The applicant also claims that the prolonged detention of her husband, whose apprehension took place before her eyes, and his alleged ill-treatment caused her severe mental anguish and suffering. In this regard, she invokes Article 3 on her own behalf. On behalf of her husband, the applicant also invokes Article 3 of the Convention and states that he is at risk of ill-treatment by the “DPR” to extract a confession from him. She also alleges that her husband was not provided with the medical care necessary for his numerous chronic health problems. The applicant also invokes the procedural limb of Article 3 on behalf of herself and her husband, stating that Russia failed to initiate an investigation into her criminal complaints. Relying on Article 5 of the Convention on behalf of herself and her husband, the applicant complains of their arbitrary and incommunicado detention, which was not accompanied by any procedural safeguards. Lastly, under Article 13 of the Convention, the applicant claims on behalf of herself and her husband 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 applicant argues, on behalf of herself and her husband, that Ukraine has failed to comply with its positive obligations to investigate their detention and alleged ill-treatment.     QUESTIONS TO THE APPLICANT AND THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT 1.     With regard to the application no. 42552/19, are there any exceptional circumstances justifying the applicant’s standing to lodge the application on behalf of her husband 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.     Has the applicant complied with the requirements set forth in Article   35   § 1 of the Convention as in force on the dates of introduction of her applications? In particular, has she complied with the requirements of diligence and expedition in pursuing domestic remedies in the Respondent States and in bringing her cases to the Court ( Mocanu and Others v. Romania [GC], nos. 10865/09 and 2   others, §§   263-69, ECHR 2014 (extracts), and Melnichuk and Others v.   Romania , nos. 35279/10 and 34782/10, §§   80 ‑ 83, 5   May 2015)?   3.     Have the applicant and her husband been subjected to ill ‑ treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention?   4.     Have the Russian Government breached their obligation by failing to provide the applicant and her husband with medical assistance, as required by Article   3 of the Convention?   5.     Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman treatment contrary to Article 3 on account of her suffering stemming from her husband’s apprehension and alleged ill-treatment ( Orhan v. Turkey , no. 25656/94, §   359-60, 18 June 2002)?   6.     Having regard to the procedural protection from inhuman and degrading treatment, has an effective investigation been conducted by the Russian authorities into the alleged ill-treatment of the applicant and her husband, as required by Article 3 of the Convention (see Mocanu and Others v. Romania , cited above, §§ 315-26)?   7.     Was there a violation of Article 5   §   1 of the Convention on account of the deprivation of liberty of the applicant and her husband ( Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia [GC], nos. 8019/16 and 3 others, § 1122, 9 July 2025)?   8.     Did the applicant and her husband have at their disposal effective domestic remedies for the above complaints, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?   QUESTIONS TO THE APPLICANT AND THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT 1.     With regard to the application no. 42552/19, are there any exceptional circumstances justifying the applicant’s standing to lodge the application on behalf of her husband 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.     Has the applicant complied with the requirements set forth in Article   35   § 1 of the Convention as in force on the dates of introduction of her applications? In particular, has she complied with the requirements of diligence and expedition in pursuing domestic remedies in the Respondent States and in bringing her cases to the Court ( Mocanu and Others v. Romania [GC], nos. 10865/09 and 2   others, §§   263-69, ECHR 2014 (extracts), and Melnichuk and Others v.   Romania , nos. 35279/10 and 34782/10, §§   80 ‑ 83, 5   May 2015)?   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 applicant and her husband ( Hanan v.   Germany [GC], no. 4871/16, §§ 198-210, 16 February 2021, and 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 applicant and her husband have at their disposal effective domestic remedies, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?   REQUEST FOR INFORMATION TO BE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT AND THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT The applicant and the Government of the Russian Federation are requested to provide updated information, supported by documentary evidence, with regard to the following questions:   1.     Is the applicant’s husband still being detained? If so, the parties are requested to clarify where he is being detained and what are the material conditions of his detention.   2.     What is the current state of the applicant’s husband’s health? The parties are requested to inform the Court about the medical examination and care, if any, that he has 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 applicant’s husband in the “DPR”.   4.     The parties are requested to provide a detailed clarification of whether the applicant’s husband has 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 him.     APPENDIX   List of applications: No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year and place of birth Nationality Applicant’s husband Year and place of birth Nationality The nature of complaints Represented by 1. 42552/19   Atamanchuk v. Russia and Ukraine 12/08/2019 Nadiya Oleksandrivna ATAMANCHUK 1949 Vyshgorod Ukrainian   Vitaliy Trofymovych ATAMANCHUK 1951 Donetsk Ukrainian On behalf of her husband AND On her own behalf on account of severe mental anguish and suffering caused to her by her husband’s apprehension and alleged ill-treatment Vitaliy Mykhaylovych KHEKALO 2. 64357/19 Atamanchuk v. Russia and Ukraine 20/11/2019 Nadiya Oleksandrivna ATAMANCHUK 1949 Vyshgorod Ukrainian   On her own behalf Vitaliy Mykhaylovych KHEKALO