Published on 30 March 2026
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 7874/17
Volodymyr Ivanovych GAZHEMON
against Russia and Ukraine
lodged on 19 January 2017
communicated on 12 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 Stanytsya Luhanska, Luhansk region, together with his wife, Ms Tetyana Gazhemon, and mother-in law, Ms Anna Rybak. The applicant owned half of a house in Stanytsya Luhanska.
The applicant claims that on 2 July 2014 his house was destroyed in an aerial attack. At the time of the attack, the applicant’s wife and mother-in-law had been inside the house or next to it. As a result, the applicant’s wife lost her leg. She was transported to a hospital, where she died three days later. On an unknown date the applicant received 2,500 Ukrainian hryvnias (around 80 euros) from the Ukrainian authorities for his wife’s burial.
The applicant’s mother-in-law sustained multiple head and chest injuries as a result of the attack. She spent three weeks at a hospital and underwent four surgeries. After her discharge on 25 July 2014, the applicant attempted to transport her over to her granddaughter in Volgograd, the Russian Federation. However, his mother-in-law died during the trip on 29 July 2014.
The applicant does not explicitly attribute the aerial attack to either party of the armed conflict. He indicates that Stanytsya Luhanska had been controlled by the “Luhansk People’s Republic” (“LPR”) until it was returned to the Ukrainian Government control on 21 August 2014.
Resort to domestic legal remedies in UkraineOn 1 November 2014 the Ukrainian law enforcement authorities initiated a proprio motu investigation into the aerial attack.
On 28 October 2016 the applicant filed a separate criminal complaint. On 3 November 2016 he was informed that his complaint had already been the subject of the investigation initiated on 1 November 2014.
On 23 November 2016 the applicant lodged a request for additional investigatory actions. On 8 December 2016 he lodged a court complaint challenging the investigator’s inactivity. On 19 December 2016 a local court dismissed that complaint because of the applicant’s failure to appear in court.
On 19 November 2016 the applicant was requested to attend the police in Sievierodonetsk to be interviewed as a victim. On 19 December 2016 the applicant requested that he be interviewed by the local police in Stanytsya Luhanska in light of the alleged dangerousness of travelling to Sievierodonetsk.
The criminal proceedings in Ukraine were ongoing at the time of the applicant’s complaint to the Court.
Resort to domestic legal remedies in RussiaOn 28 October 2016 the applicant filed a criminal complaint concerning the incident mentioned above to the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation. On 1 December 2016 he received a response that a request for mutual legal assistance had been sent to the competent bodies of Ukraine in order to verify the information provided by the applicant.
COMPLAINTSThe applicant complains under Article 2 of the Convention against Ukraine and the Russian Federation about the deaths of his wife and mother‑in-law. He also claims that the respondent States failed to carry out an effective investigation in this regard.
Invoking Article 8 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention against Ukraine and the Russian Federation, the applicant complains of the alleged damage to his house and property.
Under Article 13 of the Convention, the applicant complains of the lack of effective legal remedies in Ukraine and in the Russian Federation in respect of the above violations of the Convention.
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?
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.), 22026/10 and 9 others, §§ 23-29, 9 April 2013; and M.K. and Others v. Georgia and Russia [Committee], (dec.), no. 16053/10 and 19 others, §§ 17-23, 12 March 2024)?
3. Has the right to life of the applicant’s wife and mother-in-law, ensured by Article 2 of the Convention, been breached by the respondent States? In particular, has the use of lethal force been “absolutely necessary” for the achievement of one or more of the purposes set out in sub-paragraphs (a) to (c) of Article 2 of the Convention, and has it been strictly proportionate to the achievement of the permitted aims (Isayeva v. Russia, no. 57950/00, § 173, 24 February 2005)? Have the respondent States taken all feasible precautions in the choice of means and methods of military action in order to avoid or at least minimise incidental loss of civilian life (ibid., § 176)?
4. Have any investigations been conducted by the authorities of the respondent States to establish the perpetrators of the aerial attack in question? The parties are requested to provide documentary evidence in support of their replies to this question.
5. Have the respondent States complied with their procedural obligations to carry out an effective investigation under Article 2 of the Convention (see Georgia v. Russia (II) [GC], no. 38263/08, §§ 326-37, 21 January 2021; Güzelyurtlu and Others v. Cyprus and Turkey [GC], no. 36925/07, §§ 229‑38, 29 January 2019; and Stomatii v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, no. 69528/10, §§ 69-73, 18 September 2018)?
6. Was there a violation by the respondent States 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)?
7. Have the respondent States 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], cited above, §§ 746 (and cases cited therein), 749-51, 769, and Kerimova and Others v. Russia, nos. 17170/04 and 5 others, §§ 298-305, 3 May 2011)?
8. Did the applicant have at his disposal effective domestic remedies in the respondent States, 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)?