Published on 11 May 2026
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 23654/22
Yuliya Ksenofontivna LUSTOVA against Russia
and 2 other applications
(see list appended)
communicated on 23 April 2026
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applications concern the alleged enforced disappearance, ill‑treatment, and unlawful detention of the applicants’ three close relatives, who are civilians and were allegedly abducted by Russian forces during the full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
The applicants’ relatives were allegedly abducted in the Donetsk, Kherson, and Luhansk regions between 17 March and 2 July 2022 (see Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia [GC], nos. 8019/16 and 3 others, §§ 68-70, 9 July 2025). Applications nos. 23654/22 and 2735/23 further concern the alleged forced displacement of the applicants themselves and lack of access to their properties located in the occupied territories.
In all applications, the applicants were informed by released detainees and/or Ukrainian authorities that their relatives had been detained by the Russian authorities. However, the applicants have been unable to ascertain the exact whereabouts of their relatives.
Between 13 May 2022 and 14 January 2023, the applicants in all applications requested the Court to indicate interim measures under Rule 39 of the Rules of the Court. The Court granted those requests on various dates and decided to indicate to the Government of the Russian Federation that they should ensure respect for the Convention rights of the applicants’ close relatives, notably their rights under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, provide them with any necessary medical care, and, in applications nos. 23654/22 and 43737/22, take steps to ensure their release. In application no. 2735/23, the Court further indicated that the Government of the Russian Federation should ensure that the applicant’s husband had access to his family and/or legal representatives, with a view to enabling him to exercise effectively his right of individual application under Article 34 of the Convention, in respect of complaints falling within the Court’s jurisdiction. Those interim measures remain in force.
Furthermore, the applicants in applications nos. 23654/22 and 2735/23 allegedly lost access to their property. The applicant in application no. 23654/22 owns two apartments and a land plot. The first applicant, L. Snopenko, and her husband, P. Snopenko, in application no. 2735/23, jointly own a private house in Lysychansk, Luhansk region. Ms. L. Snopenko also stated that she lost access to another house in Lysychansk, owned solely by her.
The applicants in applications nos. 23654/22 and 2735/23 further allege that they were forced to flee their homes and are unable to return owing to the hostilities. In this respect, they submitted certificates confirming their status as internally displaced persons (IDPs).
Relying on Article 3 of the Convention, the applicant in application no. 23654/22 complains that she has suffered severe mental distress as a result of the indifference shown by the Russian authorities in response to the abduction of her husband and their failure to conduct an effective investigation into those events.
Relying on Articles 3, 5 and 13 of the Convention, all the applicants allege that their relatives were unlawfully detained in inhuman and degrading conditions and subjected to torture by the Russian authorities. Relying on the procedural limb of Article 3, taken in conjunction with Article 13, the applicant in application no. 23654/22 further complains of the Russian Federation’s failure to carry out an effective investigation.
Relying on Article 8 and 13 of the Convention, the applicant in application no. 43737/22 complains that his father was subjected by the Russian authorities to an absolute ban on contact with family members and the outside world.
Relying on Article 14, taken in conjunction with Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention, the applicant in application no. 23654/22 complains that her husband was abducted and tortured on the grounds of his Ukrainian nationality and pro-Ukrainian position.
Referring to Article 8 of the Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention, the applicants in applications nos. 23654/22 and 2735/23 complain that they were forced to flee their homes and are unable to return to their place of residence as a result of hostilities conducted by the Russian authorities. Relying on Article 1 Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicant in application no. 23654/22 and the first applicant in application no. 2735/23 complain about the lack of access to their property.
Lastly, relying on Article 34 of the Convention, the applicant in application no. 23654/22 complains that the Russian Federation failed to implement the interim measures indicated by the Court on 13 May 2022.
In support of their allegations above, the applicants rely on statements by former detainees, investigations conducted by the Ukrainian authorities, and media reports.
COMMON QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Are there exceptional circumstances in the present case justifying the applicants’ standing to lodge the applications on behalf of their relatives in the absence of any written authority to do so (see Ghazaryan and Bayramyan v. Azerbaijan, no. 33050/18, §§ 71-81, 5 October 2023)?
2. Have the applicants complied with the admissibility requirements set forth in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?
3. Having regard to the circumstances of the applicants’ relatives’ detention, were they subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia, cited above, § 1076)?
4. Were the applicants’ relatives deprived of their liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia, cited above, §§ 1113 and 1117)?
5. Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy in respect of their complaints under Articles 3 and 5 § 1 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention (see Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia, cited above, §§ 1617-21)?
CASE-SPECIFIC QUESTIONS
Application no. 23654/22
1. Has the mental suffering endured by the applicant, in connection with the disappearance of her husband and the alleged indifference of the authorities in that regard, as well as their alleged failure to conduct an effective investigation into the disappearance, attained the minimum level of severity required to fall within the scope of Article 3 of the Convention (see Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia, cited above, § 1081)? If so, has there been a breach of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicant (see Imakayeva v. Russia, no. 7615/02, §§ 164-67, ECHR 2006‑XIII (extracts))?
2. Has an effective investigation been carried out in respect of the applicant’s allegation that her husband was subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment, as required by Article 3 of the Convention (procedural limb)?
Did the applicant have at her disposal an effective domestic remedy in respect of that complaint, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
3. Has the applicant’s husband been subjected to discrimination on grounds of his political opinion and national origin, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Articles 3 and 5 § 1 of the Convention (see Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia, cited above, §§ 1606-07)?
4. Have the Government of the Russian Federation complied with the interim measures indicated by the Court on 13 May 2022 under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court? If the answer is in the negative, did their failure to comply amount to a hindrance of the effective exercise of the applicant’s right of individual application under Article 34 of the Convention (see Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey [GC], nos. 46827/99 and 46951/99, §§ 128-29, ECHR 2005-I)?
Application no. 43737/22
1. Has there been a breach of the applicant’s father’s right under Article 8 of the Convention on account of the allegedly absolute ban on his contact with his family (see El-Masri v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” [GC], no. 39630/09, §§ 236, 248-250, 13 December 2012, and Khoroshenko v. Russia [GC], no. 41418/04, §§ 106-09, 30 June 2015, with further references)?
2. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy in respect of that complaint, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
Applications nos. 23654/22 and 2735/23
1. Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their family life and/or home, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention (see Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia, cited above, § 1171)? If so, was that interference justified in terms of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention (ibid., §§ 1176-77)?
Have the same facts also given rise to a violation of the applicants’ right to liberty of movement, contrary to Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention (see Georgia v. Russia [GC] (merits), no. 38263/08, §§ 296‑301, 21 January 2021)?
2. Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see Loizidou v. Turkey (merits), § 63, 18 December 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI; see also Chiragov and Others v. Armenia, no. 13216/05, §§ 194-95, 16 June 2015)? If so, was that interference justified?
APPENDIX
List of cases:
No.
Application no.
Case name
Lodged on
Applicant
Year of Birth
Relation
Place of Residence
Nationality
Applicants’ relative
Date of Birth
Nationality
Represented by
Date and place of abduction or forced disappearance of the applicants’ relative
1.
23654/22
Lustova v. Russia
12/05/2022
Yuliya Ksenofontivna LUSTOVA
1974
wife
Mariupol
Ukrainian
Oleksiy Volodymyrovych LUSTOV
1974
Ukrainian
Mykhaylo Oleksandrovych TARAKHKALO
17 March 2022
Mariupol
Donetsk region
2.
43737/22
Garcia Munoz v. Russia
14/09/2022
David GARCIA MUNOZ
1975
son
Madrid
Spanish
Mariano GARCIA CALATAYUD
1948
Spanish
Oleksandr Fedorovych DANYLOV
19 March 2022
Kherson
Kherson region
3.
2735/23
Snopenko and Others v. Russia
14/01/2023
Liliya Anatoliyivna SNOPENKO
wife
1962
Dnipro
Ukrainian
Anton Pavlovych SNOPENKO
1988
son
Dnipro
Ukrainian
Dmytro Antonovych SNOPENKO
2013
grandson
Dnipro
Ukrainian
Oksana Viktorivna SNOPENKO
1991
daughter-in-law
Dnipro
Ukrainian
Pavlo Viktorovych SNOPENKO
1961
Ukrainian
Bogdana Vasylivna OSTROVSKA
2 July 2022
Lysychansk
Luhansk region