KOBYLIVSKYY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA AND UKRAINE

Published on 22 June 2026

 

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 43852/22
Artem Eduardovych KOBYLIVSKYY and Others
against Russia and Ukraine
lodged on 14 September 2022
communicated on 3 June 2026

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application arises from the full-scale invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Federation which began on 24 February 2022. It concerns the alleged ill-treatment, forced labour and unlawful detention of the first applicant – the remaining three applicants’ close relative – by agents of the Russian Federation.

   FACTS     Concerning the first applicant

On 24 March 2022 the first applicant – a former Ukrainian serviceman and a civilian at the material time – was allegedly abducted by the representatives of the so-called “Donetsk People’s Republic” (“DPR”) from his home in Yalta, Donetsk region. This was allegedly done under the pretext of subjecting him to filtration measures following the discovery of his prior service in the Ukrainian army (for the context, see Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia [GC], nos. 8019/16 and 3 others, §§ 1145-50, 9 July 2025).

   Detention

The first applicant alleges that, following his abduction, he was repeatedly transferred between various detention facilities in Manhush, Dokuchaievsk, Donetsk, Olenivka, Horlivka and Kirovske in the Donetsk region. In all but one of these facilities, he was allegedly beaten with hands, feet or rubber truncheons, both during interrogations and on other occasions. Apart from the physical abuse, he was also allegedly subjected to psychological abuse.

The conditions of his detention, whether common to or varying between the aforementioned facilities, allegedly included the following: overcrowding; no or restricted access to toilet; no or restricted access to shower; lack of or insufficient food; poor quality of food; no or restricted access to potable water; no or restricted access to running water; lack of or inadequate sanitary facilities; lack of privacy when using the toilet; lack of medical assistance; mouldy cells; infestation of cells with insects or rodents; no or insufficient number of sleeping places; lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen; lack of or insufficient natural light; constant artificial lighting; inadequate temperature; lack of fresh air; repeated transportations; and inadequate conditions of detention during those transportations.

While in the detention facilities in Olenivka, Horlivka and Kirovske, he was allegedly compelled, under threat of punishment, to perform daily work ranging from cleaning and repairing the roofs of the barracks to preparing food.

Upon his arrival at the pre-trial detention centre in Donetsk, a blood sample was allegedly taken from him without explanation or his consent.

   Purported grounds for detention

On 8 July 2022 the “Prosecutor General’s Office of the ‘DPR’” confirmed the first applicant’s detention. It stated that no criminal proceedings had been initiated against him in the “DPR”. At the same time, given his prior service in the Ukrainian army, he was being detained as a “captive” (“пленный”) under the “domestic law” of the “DPR”.

In letters dated 6 October and 2 December 2022, the “Ministry of Justice of the ‘DPR’” stated that on 30 March 2022 the first applicant had been subjected to administrative detention. On 27 April 2022 the “Prosecutor General’s Office of the ‘DPR’” had ordered his placement in pre-trial detention on suspicion of terrorism, and on 24 June 2022 it had revoked the above measure and had ordered that he be detained as a “captive”.

In a letter dated 29 November 2022, the “DPR Commissioner for Human Rights” stated that the duration of a “captive’s” detention depended on the validity of their “captive” status and could not be less than 10 years.

   Release

On 15 December 2023 a “DPR” “prosecutor” ordered the first applicant’s release. According to the “resolution” ordering his release, since he was not subject to criminal proceedings in the Russian Federation, there were no legal grounds for his detention. He was released on the same day.

   Request for interim measures

On 14 September 2022 the fourth applicant requested the Court to indicate interim measures under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. On 15 September 2022 the Court granted the request and decided to indicate to the Government of the Russian Federation that they should ensure respect for the first applicant’s Convention rights, notably his rights under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, and to take steps to ensure his release. On 23 May 2024 the Court decided to lift the interim measure in view of the first applicant’s release.

   Complaints to the Russian authorities

On 4 August 2022 the second applicant complained about the first applicant’s abduction to the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation (“ICRF”). On 24 August 2022 the ICRF informed her that it lacked competence to investigate the conduct of the “DPR” agents, as the “DPR” was considered a “sovereign foreign state”. On 8 August 2022 the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation provided a similar response.

On 9 November 2022 the fourth applicant also lodged a complaint with the ICRF, but to no avail.

Following his release, on 1 April 2024 the first applicant also lodged a complaint with the ICRF alleging ill-treatment, forced labour, and unlawful detention. No response had reportedly been received.

     Concerning the second and third applicant

On 1 February 2023 the second and third applicants left occupied Yalta. They currently reside in Pervomaisk, Mykolaiv region, as confirmed by their IDP certificates dated 8 February 2023.

   COMPLAINTS     By the first applicant

Relying on Article 3 of the Convention, the first applicant complains that he was detained in inhuman and degrading conditions and subjected to torture by the agents of the Russian Federation. Invoking the procedural limb of Article 3, he further complains that the Russian Federation failed to carry out an effective investigation into his allegations of abduction, ill-treatment and forced labour.

Referring to Article 4 of the Convention, he further alleges that while in the detention facilities in Olenivka, Horlivka and Kirovske, he was subjected to forced or compulsory labour.

Relying on Article 5 of the Convention, he further submits that his detention was unlawful in that it lacked any legal basis, that he was not informed promptly of the reasons for his detention and of any charge against him, that he was never brought before a judge, and that he did not receive any compensation.

Invoking Article 8 of the Convention, he further complains that the taking of his blood sample violated his right to respect for his private life.

Furthermore, referring to Article 13 of the Convention, he contends that there are no effective remedies in the Russian Federation in respect of his complaints under Articles 3, 4, 5 and 8.

Lastly, relying on Articles 13 and 34 of the Convention, he complains that the Russian Federation failed to comply with the interim measure indicated by the Court on 15 September 2022.

     By the remaining applicants

Relying on Article 3 of the Convention, the remaining three applicants complain that they suffered severe mental distress due to the uncertainty surrounding the fate of the first applicant, the indifference demonstrated by the Russian authorities in that regard and their failure to conduct an effective investigation into the matter.

Referring to Article 8 of the Convention, the second and third applicants submit that, following the first applicant’s abduction, they were forced to relocate out of fear for their safety and the risk of being abducted themselves.

 

 

 

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1.  Have the applicants complied with the admissibility requirements set forth in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?

 

2.  Having regard to the circumstances of the first applicant’s detention, was he subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia [GC], nos. 8019/16 and 3 others, § 1076, 9 July 2025)? Having regard to the procedural obligation under Article 3, has an effective investigation been carried out by the Russian authorities into his allegation of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention, as required by that provision (see Mocanu and Others v. Romania [GC], nos. 10865/09 and 2 others, §§ 315‑26, ECHR 2014 (extracts))?

 

3.  Were the second, third and fourth applicants subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment by the Russian Federation, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, in respect of their suffering due to the uncertainty surrounding the fate of the first applicant, the indifference allegedly demonstrated by the Russian authorities in that regard and their alleged failure to conduct an effective investigation into the matter (see Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, §§ 359-60, 18 June 2002 and Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia, cited above, § 1081)?

 

4.  Do the facts complained of by the first applicant amount to a violation of Article 4 of the Convention (see Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia, cited above, §§ 1093-99)?

 

5.  Was the first applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia, cited above, §§ 1113‑18)? Did he have an effective and enforceable right to compensation for his detention in alleged contravention of Article 5 § 1, as required by Article 5 § 5 of the Convention? Have any investigations been carried out in the Russian Federation into his allegation of unlawful detention (see El‑Masri v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” [GC], no. 39630/09, §§ 242-43, 13 December 2012)?

 

6.  Was there an interference with the first applicant’s right to respect for his private life within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention on account of the alleged taking of a blood sample from him (see D.H. and Others v. North Macedonia, no. 44033/17, § 49, 18 July 2023)? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?

 

7.  With regard to the complaint of relocation raised by the second and third applicants, has there been an interference with their right to respect for their home within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2 (see Chiragov and Others v. Armenia [GC], no. 13216/05, §§ 206‑08, ECHR 2015)?

 

8.  Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy in respect of their complaints under Articles 3, 4, 5 and 8, as required by Article 13 of the Convention (see Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia, cited above, §§ 1617-22)?

 

9.  Have the Government of the Russian Federation complied with the interim measure indicated on 15 September 2022 under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court? If the answer is in the negative, was there a hindrance by the Russian Government with the effective exercise of the first applicant’s right of individual application, as ensured by Article 34 of the Convention (see Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey [GC], nos. 46827/99 and 46951/99, §§ 128-29, ECHR 2005-I)?

 

 

 

APPENDIX

No.

Applicant’s Name

Year of birth

Nationality

Represented by

1.

Artem Eduardovych KOBYLIVSKYY

1997

Ukrainian

Mykhaylo Oleksandrovych TARAKHKALO

 

2.

Olena Oleksiyivna KOBYLIVSKA

1998

Ukrainian

3.

Zlata Artemivna KOBYLIVSKA

2020

Ukrainian

4.

Stanislav Eduardovych KOBYLIVSKYY

2002

Ukrainian

 

 

 

 

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy