CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 23 mars 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s20FDDAE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sCDB0B96C { margin-top:54pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s57F1263A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3B53EBCB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:6pt } Published on 13 April 2026 FOURTH SECTION Application no. 6719/23 Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union on behalf of ten Ukrainian children against Russia lodged on 14 January 2023 communicated on 25 March 2025 and 23 March 2026 The facts and complaints in this application have been summarised in the Court’s Subject matter of the case and Questions to the parties available in HUDOC   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     In light of the additional factual information concerning the profiles of the applicant children on the websites of childcare institutions, sent to the parties on 29 January and 24 February 2026, have the UHHRU made out a   prima facie   case that the concerned children were “deprived of their liberty and security” by the respondent State from 2014 to 16 September 2022   (see Ukraine and the Netherlands v.   Russia [GC], nos. 8019/16 and 3 others, §   1596, 9 July 2025)? If so, can the burden of proof be shifted to the Government to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation of the circumstances of the children’s whereabouts (see,   mutatis mutandis , Varnava and Others v. Turkey   [GC], nos.   16064/90 and 8 others, §§   181-84, ECHR   2009)?   2.     Were the authorities of the respondent State required, under Article 8 of the Convention, to respect and protect the children’s social, cultural and national identity? If so, did the respondent State’s authorities comply with these obligations?   3.     As regards the Court’s request of 10 April 2025 for information on the children’s whereabouts and on whether they have been adopted, does the Government’s failure to comply with that request amount to a breach of its obligation to cooperate with the Court under Article 38 of the Convention (see, İpek v. Turkey , no. 25760/94, § 112, ECHR 2004-II (extracts), and the authorities cited therein)?