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 } .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 } .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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s715E7C6D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3BF0B6C7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .fixListIndent { list-style-position: inside } Published on 30 March 2026   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 8072/21 Ivan Pavlovych KOCHETOV against Russia and Ukraine lodged on 30 January 2021 communicated on 9 March 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The complaints in the present application emanate from the armed conflict in the east of Ukraine. The applicant resided in the village of Stanytsia Luhanska, Luhansk region, and owned a house, an automobile repair garage, an auto shop and half of a grocery kiosk. He claims that on 11 September 2014 the grocery kiosk was damaged by shellfire, and on 19 November 2014 his house, automobile repair garage and auto shop also sustained damage as a result of another act of shelling. The applicant attributes the shellfire to the “Luhansk People’s Republic” (“LPR”). He states that Stanytsia Luhanska had been controlled by the “LPR” until it was returned to the Ukrainian Government control on 21 August 2014.    Resort to domestic legal remedies in Ukraine      Criminal law remedies On 19 January 2016 the applicant filed a criminal complaint to the Ukrainian authorities with regard to the damage to his house. On 19 August 2016 he filed criminal complaints with regard to his shopping kiosk, automobile repair garage and auto shop. The Ukrainian authorities initiated respective criminal proceedings and the applicant was granted the status of a victim in all those proceedings. On an unknown date the Ukrainian authorities ordered a forensic expert examination of the damaged buildings. The outcome of this examination is unknown. The criminal proceedings in Ukraine were ongoing at the time of the applicant’s complaint to the Court.      Civil law remedies On 11 January 2019 the applicant initiated civil proceedings pursuant to the Law “On combatting terrorism”, requesting that the Ukrainian government compensate the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage sustained by him. This Law obliged the State to compensate the damage caused by a terrorist act regardless of attribution of guilt. The applicant has not informed the Court of the outcome of these proceedings.      Administrative compensation mechanism On 16 December 2020 the local authorities of the Luhansk region awarded the applicant compensation in the amount of 300,000 Ukrainian hryvnias (around 8,760 euros) in respect of his damaged house.    Resort to domestic legal remedies in Russia On 2 July 2020 the applicant filed a criminal complaint concerning the incidents mentioned above to the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation. The applicant has not informed the Court of the outcome of this criminal complaint. COMPLAINTS Invoking Articles 8, 13 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention against the Russian Federation, the applicant complains of the alleged damage to his house and property, as well as the lack of effective legal remedies in this regard. Invoking the positive obligations of Ukraine, the applicant complains, under Articles 8, 13 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, of Ukraine’s alleged failure to conduct an effective investigation and/or guarantee effective civil remedies in respect of the damage to his house and property.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant 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 applicant an effective remedy, within the meaning of Article   35, for the alleged violations of his rights in the present case?   2.     Has the applicant complied with the time-limit laid down in Article   35   § 1 of the Convention as in force on the date of introduction of his application? In particular, has he complied with the requirements of diligence and expedition in pursuing domestic remedies in the Respondent States and in bringing his 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)? Additional questions to the applicant and the Russian Government 1.     Was there a violation by the Russian Federation of the applicant’s right to home, within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention, on account of the damage caused to his house ( 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)?   2.     Has the Russian Federation interfered with the applicant’s 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], nos. 8019/16 and 3 others, §§   746 (and cases cited therein), 749-51, 769, 9 July 2025; and Kerimova and Others v. Russia , nos.   17170/04 and 5 others, §§ 298-305, 3 May 2011)?   3.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in the Russian Federation, 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)? Additional questions to the applicant and the Ukrainian Government 1.     In light of the fact that the applicant received compensation from the Ukrainian authorities for the damage caused to his house, can he still claim to be a victim of a violation of the Convention in this respect, within the meaning of Article   34?   2.     What was the scope of the positive obligations of Ukraine under Articles 8 and 1 of Protocol No. 1, if any, with regard to the damage to the applicants’ property in the present case ( Ilaşcu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 48787/99, §§ 332-5, ECHR 2004-VII; Bekoyeva and Others v. Georgia (dec.), nos. 48347/08 and 3 others, §§ 44-46, 5 October 2021; and Abukauskai v. Lithuania , no. 72065/17, §§ 54-58, 25 February 2020, mutatis   mutandis )? If Ukraine did have respective positive obligations, were they complied with?   3.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaints under Articles 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol   No. 1 to the Convention in Ukraine, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?