Published on 9 March 2026
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 47188/22
Oleksandr Viktorovych GAPIYENKO against Russia
and 6 other applications
(see list appended)
communicated on 17 February 2026
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applications concern complaints relating to the destruction and looting of the applicants’ property as a result of military attacks carried out by Russian forces in Ukraine, as well as the denial of access to property located in the occupied areas of Ukraine.
Application no. 47188/22 lodged on 23 September 2022The applicant is an entrepreneur from Henichesk, Zaporizhzhia Region.
On 24 February 2022 Henichesk was occupied by Russian forces.
The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in conjunction with Articles 13 and 14 of the Convention of the continuous discriminatory denial of access to his possessions (a truck, trailers, engineering equipment) in Henichesk on account of his Ukrainian nationality and ethnicity, and of the absence of an effective remedy in that regard.
Application no. 18409/23 lodged on 17 April 2023The applicant lived in Mariupol where she owned a one-bedroom apartment. On 7 March 2022, while she was staying at her father’s house in Mariupol, she learnt that her apartment had been destroyed by fire following shelling. On 16 March 2022 she fled to Kyiv.
On 30 June 2022 the applicant submitted a notification of damage to the Ukrainian authorities via the dedicated service on the Diia Portal (Портал Дія). On 27 July 2022 she filed a crime report with the Pecherskyy District Police Department of Kyiv, stating that her apartment had been destroyed.
On 28 July 2022 the police instituted criminal proceedings in respect of war crimes under Article 438 § 1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (“the CCU”).
On 14 February 2023 the applicant also lodged an online complaint with the Investigative Committee of Russia (“the investigative committee”), but to no avail.
She complained under Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the destruction of her apartment as a result of unlawful military attacks and the absence of any investigation or effective remedy in that regard.
Application no. 27232/23 lodged on 23 June 2023On 16 April 2022 the applicant relocated from the village of Novodarivka, Zaporizhzhia Region, to another village in the same region, where she was registered as an internally displaced person (“IDP”). On the same day her house in Novodarivka was allegedly destroyed by a Russian airstrike. The applicant stated that she learnt of this in September 2022 from her neighbours.
She alleged that, following her relocation, she had been suffering from health problems (an eye disorder and knee arthrosis) and from psychological strain, which had prevented her from lodging an application with the Court in a timely manner. According to the medical documents, she underwent several medical examinations between July and December 2022, had abdominal surgery in February 2023, and was discharged on 10 March 2023.
On 6 January 2023 the applicant filed a crime report with the Prosecutor’s Office of the Zaporizhzhia Region (“the regional prosecutor”) concerning the destruction of her house. On 10 January 2023 the regional prosecutor forwarded her crime report to the Department of the Security Service of Ukraine (Служба безпеки України, “the SBU”) in the Zaporizhzhia Region.
On 9 June 2023 Novodarivka was liberated by Ukrainian forces.[1]
On 14 June 2023, having received no information regarding the handling of her crime report, the applicant contacted the regional prosecutor to inquire about its status and urged him to initiate criminal proceedings.
She complained under Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about her forced displacement and the destruction of her house.
Application no. 32365/23 lodged on 7 August 2023The applicant owned two houses (one of them still under construction) situated on her plot of land in Ruski Tyshky, Kharkiv Region, a village occupied by Russian forces between 24 February and 10 May 2022. She stated that she fled the village in April 2022 and learnt from her neighbours in June 2022 that both houses had been destroyed by artillery shelling. According to the applicant, the area had been mined, and she was able to visit the site and observe the damage only in October 2022.
On 18 March 2023 she submitted a notification of damage via Diia Portal in respect of the house in which she had lived, and on 15 April 2023 she submitted a further notification concerning the unfinished house.
On 5 May 2023 the applicant filed a crime report with the Department of the SBU in the Kharkiv Region, which subsequently instituted criminal proceedings under Article 438 § 1 of the CCU (war crimes). On the same day she also lodged an online complaint with the investigative committee, but to no avail.
On 6 June 2023 a commission established by the local administration inspected her houses and confirmed that both had been destroyed by Russian artillery shelling in March and July 2022.
The applicant complained under Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the destruction of her houses as a result of unlawful military attacks and about the absence of any investigation or effective remedy in that regard.
Application no. 32575/24 lodged on 16 September 2022The applicant owned a house in Tsyrkuny, Kharkiv Region, a village that was occupied by Russian forces between 24 February and 7 May 2022.
She stated that when she visited the village on 27-28 May 2022, after its liberation, she discovered that her house had been damaged (windows, terrace, fence, floors and furniture) and looted (home appliances, electronic devices and décor) during the period of Russian occupation.
The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of unlawful military attacks against her house and of the deprivation of her allegedly looted possessions.
Application no. 33073/24 lodged on 14 September 2022The applicant owned two apartments in Mariupol. She held a two-thirds share in the apartment in which she lived (“the first apartment”) and was the sole owner of the other (“the second apartment”).
On 19 March 2022 the first apartment was destroyed by fire after the building in which it was located had allegedly been shelled by Russian forces.
On 20 March 2022 the second apartment was also destroyed in similar circumstances.
On 10 May 2022 the applicant relocated to Brovary, Kyiv Region, where she was registered as an IDP. She stated that she had been unable to leave Mariupol earlier owing to continuous Russian shelling.
On 30 August 2022 she filed a crime report with the Shevchenkivskyy District Police Department in Kyiv concerning the destruction of her apartments.
On 14 September 2022 she also lodged an online complaint with the investigative committee.
The applicant complained under Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about her forced displacement, the destruction of her two apartments, including her home, as a result of unlawful military attacks, and the absence of any investigation or effective remedy in that regard.
Application no. 5045/25 lodged on 12 October 2022The applicant alleged that his house in Avdiivske (formerly Pervomaiske), Donetsk Region, had been subjected to continuous Russian shelling between 24 February and 12 August 2022, causing various forms of damage. On 15 August 2022 it was allegedly hit by an artillery shell and destroyed. The applicant submitted a statement signed by three neighbours, listing the possessions he had kept in the house and confirming the dates of the shelling.
On 15 August 2022 he relocated to Rakshivka, Dnipropetrovsk Region, where he was registered as an IDP.
On 27 September 2022 he lodged an online complaint to the investigative committee, but to no avail.
The applicant complained under Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about his forced displacement, the unlawful military attacks that had damaged and ultimately destroyed his house, and the absence of any remedy in that regard.
COMMON QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Have the applicants complied with the admissibility requirements set forth in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, have they complied with the time-limit laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? In that connection, which date should be regarded as the starting point for the calculation of that time-limit?
CASE-SPECIFIC QUESTIONS
1. As regards applications nos. 18409/23, 27323/23, 32575/24, have the applicants complied with their duty of diligence when lodging their applications, taking into account the date when the Russian Federation ceased to be a Party to the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Chiragov and Others v. Armenia (dec.) [GC], no. 13216/05, §§ 140‑141, 14 December 2011, Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan (dec.) [GC], no. 40167/06, §§ 142-146, 14 December 2011)?
2. As regards the allegations relating to situations of a continuing nature extending beyond 16 September 2022, such as denial of access to property (application no. 47188/22), the lack of investigation into military attacks against it (applications nos. 18409/23 and 32365/23), or the applicants’ forced displacement from their homes (applications nos. 27232/23 and 5045/25), can acts or omissions allegedly attributable to Russia after that date fall within the Court’s temporal jurisdiction (see Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia [GC], nos. 8019/16 and 3 others, § 185, 9 July 2025)?
3. As regards applications nos. 27232/23, 33073/24 and 5045/25, has the applicants’ displacement, albeit carried out voluntarily, from the occupied territory to the territory controlled by the Ukrainian Government amounted to an interference in breach of Article 8 of the Convention (see Ukraine and the Netherlands, cited above, §§ 1164-77)?
4. As regards application no. 47188/22, has the applicant proved that he is a victim of a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention, within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention, by submitting sufficient evidence to demonstrate that his movable property was located in the occupied territory (see Chiragov and Others v. Armenia [GC], no. 13216/05, §§ 128‑135, ECHR 2015)?
If so, has there been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the denial of his access to that property (see Loizidou v. Turkey (merits), 18 December 1996, §§ 52-56 and 63, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI)?
Has there been a violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention on account of the alleged denial of access to the applicant’s property in occupied areas undermining his Ukrainian nationality and ethnicity (see Ukraine and the Netherlands, cited above, §§ 1606-07)?
Did the applicant have an effective remedy in that regard, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
5. As regards applications nos. 18409/23, 27232/23, 32365/23, 32575/24, 33073/24 and 5045/25, has there been a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the destruction and/or looting of the applicants’ property (see Ukraine and the Netherlands, cited above, §§ 769-772)?
Did the applicants in applications nos. 18409/23, 32365/23, 33073/24 and 5045/25 have an effective remedy in that regard, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
In applications nos. 18409/23, 32365/23 and 33073/24, did the alleged military attacks also amount to a breach Article 8 of the Convention on account of the destruction of the applicants’ homes (see Ukraine and the Netherlands, cited above, §§ 1450-53)? Has there been an effective investigation of those attacks by the Russian authorities (see Adzhigitova and Others v. Russia, nos. 40165/07 and 2593/08, § 255, 22 June 2021)?
REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
The applicants are invited to inform the Court of the status and any updates concerning the domestic proceedings to which they have resorted (for example, a notification of damage submitted via the Diia Portal or a crime report lodged with the Ukrainian or Russian authorities), and to indicate whether they have benefited from any compensatory measure. They are further requested to provide copies of all relevant documentation relating to those proceedings.
APPENDIX
List of cases:
No.
Application no.
Case name
Lodged on
Applicant
Year of Birth
Place of Residence
Nationality
Represented by
1.
47188/22
Gapiyenko v. Russia
23/09/2022
Oleksandr Viktorovych GAPIYENKO
1984
Henichesk
Ukrainian
Illya Volodymyrovych SHEVCHENKO
2.
18409/23
Temir v. Russia
17/04/2023
Iryna Oleksandrivna TEMIR
1974
Mariupol
Ukrainian
Mykhaylo Oleksandrovych TARAKHKALO
3.
27232/23
Demurenko v. Russia
23/06/2023
Ganna
Ivanivna DEMURENKO
1951
Smolyane
Ukrainian
4.
32365/23
Murodyan v. Russia
07/08/2023
Nadiya
Ivanivna MURODYAN
1959
Kharkiv
Ukrainian
Mykhaylo Oleksandrovych TARAKHKALO
5.
32575/24
Shestakova v. Russia
16/09/2022
Svitlana Oleksandrivna SHESTAKOVA
1980
Kharkiv
Ukrainian
6.
33073/24
Kalnytska v. Russia
14/09/2022
Nina Oleksiivna KALNYTSKA
1952
Brovary
Ukrainian
7.
5045/25
Trusyuk v. Russia
12/10/2022
Valeriy Ivanovych TRUSYUK
1959
Rakshivka
Ukrainian
Yuliya Anatoliyivna SEGEDA
[1] Information on the periods of hostilities and occupation is based on Order no. 376 of the Ministry for the Development of Communities and Territories of Ukraine dated 28 February 2025, as amended.