PAVLYUK v. RUSSIA AND UKRAINE and 5 other applications

Published on 15 September 2025

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 41246/22
Mariya Viktorivna PAVLYUK against Russia and Ukraine
and 5 other applications
(see table appended)
communicated on 27 August 2025

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES

The applications concern the alleged ill-treatment and unlawful detention of a number of Ukrainian prisoners of war who are the applicants’ close relatives and who were captured by Russian forces during the full-scale invasion.

The applicants’ relatives, who are servicemen of the National Guard of Ukraine, were captured by Russian forces at the Chornobyl Nuclear Power Plant (“Chornobyl NPP”) in the Kyiv region on 24 February 2022 when Russian troops took control of the Chornobyl NPP (see Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia [GC], nos. 8019/16 and 3 others, § 67, 9 July 2025). On 31 March 2022 the applicants’ relatives were transferred by a truck to an unidentified location. Subsequently, the applicants have been unable to establish the whereabouts of their relatives. The applicants only received a confirmation from Ukrainian authorities that their relatives had been in held in captivity on the territory of the Russian Federation or in the Republic of Belarus.

On different dates between 30 August to 8 December 2022, the applicants in all applications requested the Court to indicate interim measures under Rule 39 of the Rules of the Court. The Court accepted the requests and decided to indicate to the Government of the Russian Federation that they should ensure respect for the Convention rights of the applicants’ relatives and provide them with medical assistance should they need such assistance in applications nos. 41246/22, 41301/22, 42810/22, 42839/22 and 42843/22. The Court decided to indicate to the Government of the Russian Federation they should ensure that applicant’s husband is able to have access to his family and/or representatives with a view to enabling him to exercise effectively their right of individual application in application no. 56435/22. In addition, the Court decided to indicate to the Government of Ukraine that they should ensure, insofar as it is possible to do so, respect for the Convention rights of applicant’s husband.

Relying on Articles 2 and 13 of the Convention, the applicant in application no. 56435/22 alleges that her husband’s life was put at risk because he was detained in the premises of the Chornobyl NPP where the level of radiation was significantly high as a result of attacks by Russian soldiers. Moreover, she complains of a practice by Russian authorities of extra-judicial killings and deaths due to torture and lack of medical care to which her husband may have fallen victim.

Relying on Article 3 of the Convention, the applicants in all applications complain that they are suffering severe mental distress due to the indifference demonstrated by Russian authorities regarding the capture and subsequent disappearance of their relatives and the failure to conduct an effective investigation into these facts.

Relying on Articles 3, 5 and 13 of the Convention, the applicants in all applications complain that their relatives were unlawfully detained in inhuman and degrading conditions and subjected to torture by Russian authorities. The applicants lodged complaints with the Ukrainian police and with the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation. They complain that no effective investigation was carried out by Russian or Ukrainian authorities in respect of their allegations.

Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, the applicant in application no. 56435/22 complains that her husband was subjected to an absolute ban on contact with family members and the outside world by Russian authorities. Lastly, relying on Article 34 of the Convention, she complains that the Russian Federation failed to implement the interim measures indicated by the Court on 9 December 2022.

In support of their allegations, the applicants rely on testimonies provided by former detainees, media reports and reports by Ukrainian authorities. The applicant in application no. 56435/22 further relies on the report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCR) entitled “Human Rights situation in Ukraine between 1 February and 31 July 2022” of 27 September 2022. They also rely on Resolution no. 2463 of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe of 13 October 2022 and a report published by Ukrainian NGO ZMINA Human Rights Center on the transfer of prisoners of war from the Chornobyl NPP.

QUESTIONS TO QUESTIONS TO THE APPLICANTS AND THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT

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

2.  Has the right to life of the applicant’s relative in application no. 56435/22, ensured by Article 2 of the Convention, been violated? Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 104, ECHR 2000-VII), have investigations been carried out in respect of the applicant’s allegations of a violation of Article 2 of the Convention, as required by that provision?

3.  Has the applicants’ mental suffering in connection with the disappearance of their relatives and the authorities’ alleged indifference in that respect and their alleged failure to conduct an effective investigation into the disappearance been sufficiently serious to amount to inhuman and degrading treatment, within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention? If so, has there been a breach of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicants (see Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia [GC], cited above, § 1081)?

4.  Were the applicants’ relatives subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia [GC], cited above, § 1076)? Have investigations been carried out in respect of the applicants’ allegations of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention as required by that provision?

5.  Were the applicants’ relatives deprived of their liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see Hassan v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29750/09, §§ 100-07, 16 September 2014)?

6.  Has there been a breach of the right of the applicant’s husband in application no. 56435/22 under Article 8 of the Convention on account of the alleged absolute ban on his contact with family?

7.  Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Articles 2, 3, 5 and 8, as required by Article 13 of the Convention (see Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia [GC], cited above, §§ 1617-21)?

8.  Have the Government of the Russian Federation complied with the interim measures indicated on 9 December 2022 under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court in application no. 56435/22? If the answer is in the negative, was there a hindrance by the Russian Government with the effective exercise of the applicant’s right of individual application, 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)?

QUESTIONS TO THE APPLICANTS AND THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT

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

2.  Have investigations been carried out in respect of the applicants’ allegations of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention, as required by that provision?

3.  Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Article 3 as required by Article 13 of the Convention?

APPENDIX

List of applications: