STAVTSEV v. RUSSIA AND UKRAINE and 14 other applications

Published on 2 March 2026

 

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 42561/18
Yuriy Volodymyrovych STAVTSEV against Russia and Ukraine
and 14 other applications
(see list appended)
communicated on 11 February 2026

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The applications emanate from the armed conflict in the east of Ukraine.

On various dates between March 2017 and March 2021 the applicants’ relatives, all civilians (listed in the table below), were apprehended by representatives of the “Donetsk People’s Republic” (“DPR”) in non‑government controlled territory of Ukraine. Since then they have been held in various penitentiary facilities in the Donetsk region with very limited or no contact with the outside world.

In view of the applicants’ relatives’ alleged inability to have contact with the outside world, the present applications were introduced by the applicants on their behalf.

“Criminal proceedings” against the applicants’ relatives

Following their apprehension, most of the applicants’ relatives were placed under “administrative arrest” for a period of thirty to sixty days on suspicion of having committed criminal offences under the “DPR Criminal Code”. Within those thirty and sixty days, “investigative bodies” of the “DPR” opened “criminal cases” against the applicants’ relatives, usually charging them with the offences of espionage, treason, sabotage or terrorist activities. Most of them were placed in pre-trial detention pending “trial” by the “DPR courts”.

The applicants’ relatives’ ill-treatment and the lack of medical care in detention

The applicants’ relatives in applications nos. 42561/18, 56756/18, 2/19, 8387/20, 14687/21, 19855/21, 26020/21, 35733/21 and 61682/21 have a number of chronic health problems which, if not treated, may allegedly cause them physical pain or put their lives at risk. Their problems are exacerbated by the lack of proper nutrition and poor conditions of their detention.

The applicants also claim that their relatives have either been tortured or are at serious risk of ill-treatment to extract confessions from them. It is also claimed that the prolonged detention of the applicants’ relatives causes them severe psychological and physical harm.

The applicants’ suffering

The applicants claim that the prolonged detention of their relatives, which is not accompanied by any procedural guarantees, and the uncertainty surrounding their fates in detention, cause them severe mental anguish and suffering.

The applicants’ relatives’ contact with the outside world

It is claimed that most of the applicants’ relatives have not had any contact with their families or the outside world since the day of their apprehension. The applicant in application no. 56756/18 saw his relative only once and for five minutes. The applicants in applications nos. 42561/18 and 2/19 were able to see their relatives twice in the presence of the “‘DPR’ Ministry of State Security” (“MGB”), which impeded free communication. The applicant in application no. 48058/18 was able to see his detained relative only once after approximately three years of detention. The applicant in application no. 35733/21 saw her detained relatives once in the presence of “MGB officers”, and the latter heavily restricted the subjects they were discussing during the visit.

Some applicants were able to transfer parcels containing food, clothing or medication to their relatives.

Domestic remedies attempted in Ukraine and the Russian Federation

The applicants made official complaints in Ukraine, especially to the National Police of Ukraine and the Security Service of Ukraine. They also submitted criminal complaints to the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation.

Interim measures granted by the Court

Between September 2018 and December 2021, at the requests of the applicants, the Court indicated interim measures, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, to the respondent Governments and asked them to ensure respect for the applicants’ relatives’ Convention rights including, where appropriate, respect for the security of person and/or for provision of medical care.

In their responses the Russian Government argued that the applicants’ relatives were not within their jurisdiction. The Government of Ukraine stated that all possible measures were being taken to establish the circumstances of the applicants’ relatives’ unlawful deprivation of liberty and to secure their release from captivity.

The interim measures indicated by the Court are still in force.

COMPLAINTS

Complaints against the Russian Federation

Invoking Article 3 of the Convention on behalf of their relatives, the applicants in applications nos. 42561/18, 56756/18, 2/19, 8387/20, 14687/21, 19855/21, 26020/21, 35733/21 and 61682/21 claim that the lack of medical care in detention, combined with the lack of proper nutrition and poor conditions of detention, exacerbated their relatives’ health problems and put their lives and health at risk.

All applicants allege, on behalf of their relatives, that their relatives have been tortured or are at risk of being ill-treated in order to extract confessions from them. They also claim that their relatives have been subjected to severe psychological trauma caused by prolonged unacknowledged detention with no meaningful contacts with their families. Additionally, all applicants claim on behalf of their relatives that Russia failed to initiate an investigation into their criminal complaints.

All applicants also invoke Article 3 of the Convention on their own behalf, stating that their relatives’ prolonged and unlawful detention causes them severe mental anguish and suffering that reach the threshold of Article 3.

Relying on Article 5 of the Convention, the applicants claim on behalf of their relatives that the latter’s detention under the control of the “DPR” has been arbitrary and devoid of any procedural safeguards guaranteed by Article 5.

Lastly, under Article 13 of the Convention, the applicants claim on behalf of their relatives that no effective legal remedies existed in the Russian Federation in respect of the above violations of the Convention.

Complaints against Ukraine

Invoking the procedural aspect of Article 3 in conjunction with Article 13 of the Convention, the applicants argue, on behalf of their relatives, that Ukraine has failed to comply with its positive obligations to investigate their relatives’ detention and alleged ill-treatment.

 

 

QUESTIONS TO THE APPLICANTS AND THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT

1.  Are there any exceptional circumstances in the present cases justifying the applicants’ standing to lodge 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 requirements set forth in Article 35 §1 of the Convention as in force on the dates of introduction of their applications?

 

3.  As regards the applications nos. 42561/18, 56756/18, 2/19, 8387/20, 14687/21, 19855/21, 26020/21, 35733/21 and 61682/21, have the Russian Government breached their obligation to provide the applicants’ relatives with medical assistance, as required by Article 3 of the Convention?

 

4.  Have the applicants’ relatives been subjected to ill-treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention?

 

5.  Having regard to the procedural protection from inhuman and degrading treatment, have effective investigations been conducted by the Russian authorities into the alleged ill-treatment of the applicants’ relatives, as required by Article 3 of the Convention (see Mocanu and Others v. Romania [GC], nos. 10865/09 and 2 others, §§ 315-326, ECHR 2014 (extracts)?

 

6.  Have the applicants themselves been subjected to inhuman treatment contrary to Article 3 on account of their suffering stemming from their relatives’ apprehension and prolonged detention (Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, § 359-360, 18 June 2002)?

 

7.  Were or are the applicants’ relatives deprived of their liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia [GC], nos. 8019/16 and 3 others, § 1122, 9 July 2025)?

 

8.  Did the applicants’ relatives have at their disposal effective domestic remedies for the above complaints, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?

QUESTIONS TO THE APPLICANTS AND THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT

1.  Are there any exceptional circumstances in the present cases justifying the applicants’ standing to lodge 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 requirements set forth in Article 35 §1 of the Convention as in force on the dates of introduction of their applications?

 

3. Did the Ukrainian Government have a positive obligation under the procedural limb of Article 3 of the Convention to investigate the alleged abduction and ill-treatment of the applicants’ relatives (Hanan v. Germany [GC], no. 4871/16, §§ 198-210, 16 February 2021; Abdulaal Naser and Others v. Denmark, no. 46571/22, §§ 112-31, 21 October 2025)? If so, has the Ukrainian Government complied with their respective obligations? If not, did the applicants’ relatives have at their disposal effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION TO BE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANTS AND THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT

The applicants and the Government of the Russian Federation are requested to provide updated information, supported by documentary evidence, with regard to the following questions:

 

1.  Are the applicants’ relatives still being detained? If so, the parties are requested to clarify where they are being detained and what are the material conditions of their detention.

 

2.  What is the current state of the applicants’ relatives’ health? The parties are requested to inform the Court about the medical examination and care, if any, that they have received while in detention.

 

3.  The parties are requested to inform the Court about any developments with regard to the “criminal proceedings” introduced against the applicants’ relatives in the “DPR”.

 

4.  The parties are requested to provide a detailed clarification of whether the applicants’ relatives have been visited in detention by any family members, legal representatives, or medical professionals, and whether any letters or other means of communication have been received from them.

 

 

APPENDIX

List of cases:

 

No.

Application no.

Case name

Lodged on

Applicant
 

The applicant’s relative(s) and

the degree of kinship

 

Represented by

1.

42561/18

Stavtsev

v. Russia and Ukraine

08/09/2018

Yuriy Volodymyrovych STAVTSEV
1956
Vyshgorod
Ukrainian

The applicant’s son

Yevgen Yuriyovych STAVTSEV
1985
Vyshgorod
Ukrainian

Vitaliy Mykhaylovych KHEKALO

2.

44936/18

Boranova

v. Russia and Ukraine

24/09/2018

Valentyna Grygorivna BORANOVA
1963
Stepne
Ukrainian
 

The applicant’s son

Stanyslav Vasylyovych BORANOV
1986
Stepne
Ukrainian

Mykhaylo Oleksandrovych TARAKHKALO

3.

48058/18

Farber

v. Russia and Ukraine

12/10/2018

Oleksandr Vyacheslavovych

FARBER
1999
Donetsk
Ukrainian

The applicant’s father

Vyacheslav Oleksandrovych

FARBER
1964
Donetsk
Ukrainian

Vitaliy Mykhaylovych KHEKALO

4.

56756/18

Nosov

v. Russia and Ukraine

04/12/2018

Oleksandr Sergiyovych NOSOV
1991
Kyiv
Ukrainian
 

The applicant’s father

Sergiy Petrovych

NOSOV
1958
Vasylivka
Ukrainian

Mykhaylo Oleksandrovych TARAKHKALO

5.

2/19

Gorobets

v. Russia and Ukraine

28/12/2018

Valentyna Sergiyivna GOROBETS
1961
Stadnitsa
Ukrainian
 

The applicant’s son

Vasyl Ivanovych

GOROBETS
1985
Donetsk
Ukrainian

Vitaliy Mykhaylovych KHEKALO

6.

7877/19

Taran

v. Russia and Ukraine

08/02/2019

Nadiya Petrivna

TARAN
1951
Donetsk
Ukrainian
 

The applicant’s son

Oleg Valeriyovych

TARAN
1984
Donetsk
Ukrainian

Vitaliy Mykhaylovych KHEKALO

7.

8357/20

Shapovalova

v. Russia and Ukraine

10/02/2020

Ganna Georgiyivna SHAPOVALOVA
1941
Donetsk
Ukrainian
 

The applicant’s son

Yuriy Valeriyovych SHAPOVALOV
1964
Donetsk
Ukrainian

Vitaliy Mykhaylovych KHEKALO

8.

8387/20

Zakrevska

v. Russia and Ukraine

10/02/2020

Galyna Viktorivna ZAKREVSKA
1969
Dovga Balka
Ukrainian
 

The applicant’s brother

Vyacheslav Viktorovych ZASYPKA
1977
Dovga Balka
Ukrainian

Vitaliy Mykhaylovych KHEKALO

9.

48641/20

Tkachenko

v. Russia and Ukraine

05/11/2020

Nataliya Oleksiyivna TKACHENKO
1975
Koryukivka
Ukrainian
 

The applicant’s husband

Oleksandr Mykolayovych OTVYORTKIN
1975
Donetsk
Ukrainian

Alina Viktorivna PAVLYUK

10.

14687/21

Akopyan

v. Russia and Ukraine

17/03/2021

Yurik Robertovych AKOPYAN
1993
Kramatorsk Donetsk region
Ukrainian
 

The applicant’s brother

Mkhitar Robertovych AKOPYAN
1990
Kramatorsk Donetsk region
Ukrainian

Vitaliy Mykhaylovych KHEKALO

11.

19855/21

Utkina

v. Russia and Ukraine

16/04/2021

Tetyana Vitaliyivna UTKINA
1979
Volnovakha
Ukrainian
 

The applicant’s husband

Viktor Ivanovych

UTKIN
1961
Volnovakha
Ukrainian

Vitaliy Mykhaylovych KHEKALO

12.

26020/21

Kiryushkin

v. Russia and Ukraine

24/05/2021

Oleksiy Volodymyrovych KIRYUSHKIN
1955
Vugledar
Ukrainian
 

The applicant’s son-in-law

Igor Valeriyovych POGOLDIN
1982
Donetsk
Ukrainian

Vitaliy Mykhaylovych KHEKALO

13.

35733/21

Polivoda

v. Russia and Ukraine

15/07/2021

Tetyana Grygorivna POLIVODA
1951
Yasynuvata
Ukrainian
 

The applicant’s daughter

Olena Vasylivna

ZAYTSEVA
1971

Verkhnyotoretske
Ukrainian

 

The applicant’s grandson

Vladyslav Sergiyovych ZAYTSEV
2000

Verkhnyotoretske
Ukrainian

Vitaliy Mykhaylovych KHEKALO

14.

61676/21

Vyshnytska

v. Russia and Ukraine

23/12/2021

Svitlana Volodymyrivna VYSHNYTSKA
1962
Donetsk
Ukrainian
 

The applicant’s son

Volodymyr Oleksandrovych VYSHNYTSKYY
1988
Donetsk
Ukrainian

Vitaliy Mykhaylovych KHEKALO

15.

61682/21

Sydorenko

v. Russia and Ukraine

23/12/2021

Svitlana Petrivna SYDORENKO
1960
Donetsk
Ukrainian
 

The applicant’s son

Eduard Mykolayovych MAYOROV
1978
Donetsk
Ukrainian

Vitaliy Mykhaylovych KHEKALO

 

 

 

 

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy