CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 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 } .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 } .sA1DC02B0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .fixListIndent { list-style-position: inside } Published on 30 March 2026   FOURTH SECTION Applications nos. 19844/21 and 15921/25 Oksana Oleksandrivna SYMDYANKINA against Russia and Ukraine lodged on 16 April 2021 and 15 September 2022 communicated on 9 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 Oleksandr Symdyankin, are civilians and were residing in Donetsk, in non ‑ government controlled territory of Ukraine. On 14 October 2020 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 meaningful 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 building of the “Ministry of State Security of the ‘DPR’” in Donetsk On 14 October 2020 representatives of the “DPR” put a plastic bag on the applicant’s head, took her to the building of the “Ministry of State Security” (“MGB”) and interrogated her. After that, she was transferred to the MGB detention facility called Izolyatsiya, also with a plastic bag over her head. She was held in detention for three weeks, throughout which she was repeatedly interrogated and threatened that her children would be taken away from the family. The applicant heard her husband being ill-treated in an adjacent cell. The conditions of the applicant’s detention allegedly included solitary confinement, poor nutrition, inadequate sanitary facilities and the lack of medical care. The applicant was released on 7 November 2020. Following her release, she developed a number of physical and mental health problems, which she attributes to the stress and suffering she had undergone in detention.      “Criminal proceedings” against the applicant’s husband and his ill ‑ treatment in the building of the “MGB” The applicant’s husband, apprehended at the same time as her, remained detained in the building of the “MGB”. He was charged with the offence of espionage under the “Criminal Code of the ‘DPR’” and subsequently transferred to the Donetsk pre-trial detention centre. According to the applicant, further details of the “criminal proceedings” against her husband are unknown. 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. Those health problems were exacerbated by the lack of proper nutrition and poor conditions of detention in Donetsk pre-trial detention centre, including overcrowding, high humidity, and close proximity to a landfill. In 2021 and 2022 the applicant was summoned to the “MGB” to testify in the “proceedings” against her husband. She was able to see her husband in an investigator’s office on a few occasions. She also sent and received correspondence from her husband.      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. 19844/21) On 21 April 2021, 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 and provide him with necessary medical assistance and medication. 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, on 13 July 2022 the applicant submitted a criminal complaint to the Ukrainian authorities, which instituted criminal proceedings on 4 August 2022. According to the most recent information available to the Court, these proceedings are ongoing. On 13 September 2022 the applicant submitted a criminal complaint to the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation. She has not informed the Court about the outcome of the complaint. 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. 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 is being detained in inadequate material conditions and that he is 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 arbitrarily 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. 19844/21, 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. 19844/21, 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. 19844/21 Symdyankina v. Russia and Ukraine 16/04/2021 Oksana Oleksandrivna SYMDYANKINA 1983 Odesa Ukrainian   Oleksandr Oleksandrovych SYMDYANKIN 1983 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. 15921/25 Symdyankina v. Russia and Ukraine 15/09/2022 Oksana Oleksandrivna SYMDYANKINA 1983 Odesa Ukrainian   On her own behalf Vitaliy Mykhaylovych KHEKALO