CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 avril 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 27 April 2026   FIFTH SECTION Applications nos. 25314/25 and 25315/25 Natalia ILANSKA VENTSISLAVOVA against Cyprus and Laura TOKAROVA against Cyprus lodged on 8 August 2025 communicated on 7 April 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the detention of the minor applicants in remand at police stations not designated as “juvenile detention centres” under Law   55(I)/2021 and the conditions of detention at the said stations. Neither of the applicants is currently detained. Application no. 25314/25 further concerns the applicant’s transfer to and detention at Nicosia Central Prisons, allegedly with convicted adults, from 20   May until 3 June 2025, and the conditions of detention at the said prison. Both applicants complain that their detention at police stations, designed for short-term custody only, and which were not designated as adequately adapted centres for the detention of female minors under Law 55(I)/2021 had breached their rights under Article 3 of the Convention. They further complain that their detention in unsuitable conditions with adults did not respect their age and needs as children and breached their rights for the enjoyment of their private and family life under Article 8 of the Convention. The applicant in application no. 25314/25 further complains under the same articles about her detention at Nicosia Central Prisons.       QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Have the applicants exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article   35 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, were civil proceedings for damages an effective remedy within the meaning of this provision in respect of the applicants’ complaints under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention?   The parties are required to provide both successful and unsuccessful case ‑ law examples, if any, concerning claims for similar complaints adjudicated by the domestic courts.   2.     Have the applicants been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article   3 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicants’ detention at police stations, as well as the material conditions at the said stations, compatible with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention? (see, Güveç v. Turkey, no. 70337/01, § 90-98, ECHR 2009 (extracts), Kuparadze v. Georgia, no. 30743/09, 21 September 2017, Zherdev v.   Ukraine, no. 34015/07, §§ 92-93, 27 April 2017, N.B. and Others v.   France, no. 49775/20, 31 March 2022, and mutatis mutandis, Selçuk v.   Turkey, no. 21768/02, §§ 35-36, 10 January 2006 and Nart v.   Turkey , no.   20817/04, §§ 33-34, 6 May 2008).   3.     As regards the applicant in application no. 25314/25, was her subsequent detention from 20 May until 3 June 2025 at the Nicosia Central Prisons with convicted adults, as well as the material conditions of detention at the said prison, compatible with the requirements of Article   3 of the Convention?   4.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for private and family life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention as a result of their pre-trial detention in places and conditions allegedly inadequate for the accommodation of minor remand prisoners? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article   8 §   2 ( Raninen v. Finland , 16 December 1997, §   63, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VIII)?