VAKULENKO v. RUSSIA AND UKRAINE and 15 other applications

Published on 6 October 2025

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 27298/15
Olena Pavlivna VAKULENKO against Russia and Ukraine
and 15 other applications
(see list appended)
communicated on 19 September 2025

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES

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

The applicants, all of whom are civilians, submit that they sustained significant bodily injuries as a result of the shelling of the “Skhidnyi” neighbourhood of Mariupol on 24 January 2015 (see also Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia [GC], nos. 8019/16 and 3 others, §§ 653-54, 9 July 2025). Mariupol was controlled by the Ukrainian Government at the material time. The applicants attribute the shelling to the “Donetsk People’s Republic” (“DPR”).

Each applicant underwent at least one surgery to have shrapnel pieces removed from their bodies, and had to go through lengthy treatment and rehabilitation. Some applicants were left with a permanent or temporary disability, suffered an organ dysfunction or had shrapnel fragments left in their bodies. The applicant in application no. 42068/19 partly lost her legs.

The Ukrainian law enforcement authorities initiated criminal proceedings into the attack on 24 January 2015. Most applicants were recognised as victims in those proceedings within days after the event. A forensic medical expert assessment of the injuries was ordered in respect of each applicant. The Ukrainian authorities inspected the territory of the shelling impact and seized shrapnel pieces for expert assessment. According to the forensic explosives expert report, the shrapnel pieces had come from “unguided rocket-propelled fragmentation and high-explosive projectiles M-21 OФ launched by a ‘Grad’ multiple launch rocket system”.

By February 2019 the Ukrainian authorities issued notifications of suspicion against twelve servicemen of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation allegedly responsible for the attack.

Each applicant lodged criminal complaints to the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation. The latter provided two types of responses, stating either that Russia was not a party to the armed conflict in Ukraine and that the applicants should have approached the Ukrainian authorities or, alternatively, 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 applicants.

The applicants invoke the substantive limbs of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, claiming that the shelling significantly endangered their lives and that they sustained grave injuries as a result. Under Article 8 of the Convention, all applicants complain of the impact of the injuries on their private life, including prolonged medical problems, costly and painful treatment and inability to provide care to their dependents or engage in gainful employment while undergoing treatment and rehabilitation.

The applicant in application no. 39761/16 also complains under Article 8 of having to temporarily relocate to a different region of Ukraine for safety.

Invoking the procedural limbs of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 13, the applicants complain of Ukraine’s and the Russian Federation’s alleged failure to carry out an effective investigation into the attack and of the lack of an effective legal remedy thereto.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1.  Have the applicants exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?

2.  Have the applicants in applications nos. 38476/15, 41854/15, 39761/16, 42068/19 and 45969/21 complied with the time-limit laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention as in force on the dates of introduction of their applications? In particular, have they complied with the requirements of diligence and expedition in pursuing domestic remedies in the Respondent States and in bringing their cases to the Court (Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos. 16064/90 and 8 others, § 162, ECHR 2009; Mocanu and Others v. Romania [GC], nos. 10865/09 and 2 others, §§ 263-69, ECHR 2014 (extracts); and Melnichuk and Others v. Romania, nos. 35279/10 and 34782/10, §§ 80-83, 5 May 2015)?

3.  Has the applicants’ right to life, ensured by Article 2 of the Convention, been breached by the Russian Federation? 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)? Has the Russian Federation 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.  Has the Russian Federation subjected the applicants to inhuman treatment on account of the injuries they sustained, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia [GC], cited above, §§ 749, 752, 761-762)?

5.  Has there been an interference, by the Russian Federation, with the applicants’ right to respect for private life, in particular, their physical, psychological or moral integrity? If so, has that interference been in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?

6.  With regard to the complaint of temporary relocation in application no. 39761/16, has there been an interference, by the Russian Federation, with the applicant’s right to respect for her home within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention (Kudukhova v. Georgia (dec.), no. 8274/09, § 37, 20 November 2018)? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2 (Chiragov and Others v. Armenia [GC], no. 13216/05, §§ 195, 203-08, ECHR 2015)?

The parties are invited to provide evidence regarding the applicant’s temporary relocation and its duration.

7.  Have the Respondent States complied with their procedural obligations to carry out an effective investigation under Articles 2 and 3 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; Stomatii v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, no. 69528/10, §§ 69-73, 18 September 2018; and Mocanu and Others v. Romania, cited above, § 319)?

8. Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their Convention complaints in the Respondent States, as required by Article 13 of the Convention (see Öneryıldız v. Turkey [GC], no. 48939/99, §§ 145-49, ECHR 2004-XII; and Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia [GC], cited above, §§ 1617-21)?

APPENDIX

List of applications:

No.

Application

 no.

Case name

Lodged on

Applicant
Place of residence
Nationality

Represented by

Type and severity of injuries

Status in the criminal proceedings and the investigative actions taken in respect of the applicant

1.

27298/15

Vakulenko v. Russia and Ukraine

28/05/2015

Olena Pavlivna VAKULENKO
Mariupol
Ukrainian

Yuliya Volodymyrivna NAUMENKO

Shrapnel injuries of medium severity to the applicant’s back, thigh and wrist

Applicant recognised as a victim and interviewed; her injuries assessed by a forensic medical expert

2.

27721/15

Bogdanova v. Russia and Ukraine

28/05/2015

Albina Sergiyivna BOGDANOVA
Mariupol
Ukrainian

Yuliya Volodymyrivna NAUMENKO

Shrapnel injuries to the applicant’s lung, ear and thigh

Applicant recognised as a victim; a forensic medical expert assessment ordered

3.

28319/15

Skurenok v. Russia and Ukraine

29/05/2015

Oleksiy Anatoliyovych

SKURENOK

Mariupol
Ukrainian

Yuliya Volodymyrivna NAUMENKO

Shrapnel injuries of low severity to the applicant’s face and thighs

Applicant recognised as a victim and interviewed; his injuries assessed by a forensic medical expert

4.

28407/15

Ivanova v. Russia and Ukraine

29/05/2015

Oksana Oleksandrivna IVANOVA
Mariupol
Ukrainian

Yuliya Volodymyrivna NAUMENKO

Shrapnel injuries of medium severity to the applicant’s thighs, knees, ankles and feet

Applicant recognised as a victim and interviewed; her injuries assessed by a forensic medical expert

5.

28743/15

Gargayeva v. Russia and Ukraine

03/06/2015

Nataliya Petrivna GARGAYEVA
Mariupol
Ukrainian

Yuliya Volodymyrivna NAUMENKO

Shrapnel injuries to the applicant’s face, arm, thighs and foot

Applicant recognised as a victim; a forensic medical expert assessment ordered

6.

29169/15

Baranyuk v. Russia and Ukraine

03/06/2015

Mykola Valeriyovych BARANYUK
Mariupol
Ukrainian

Yuliya Volodymyrivna NAUMENKO

Shrapnel injuries of low severity to the applicant’s thigh and buttock

Applicant recognised as a victim and interviewed; his injuries assessed by a forensic medical expert

7.

29878/15

Poyda v. Russia and Ukraine

10/06/2015

Kateryna Sergiyivna POYDA
Mariupol
Ukrainian

Yuliya Volodymyrivna NAUMENKO

Shrapnel injuries to the applicant’s thigh

Applicant recognised as a victim and interviewed; a forensic medical expert assessment ordered

8.

29897/15

Nikolayeva v. Russia and Ukraine

10/06/2015

Nataliya Mykhaylivna NIKOLAYEVA
Mariupol
Ukrainian

Yuliya Volodymyrivna NAUMENKO

Shrapnel injuries of medium severity to the applicant’s buttock

Applicant recognised as a victim and interviewed; her injuries assessed by a forensic medical expert

9.

37153/15

Kovalchuk v. Russia and Ukraine

21/07/2015

Vitaliy Vladimirovich KOVALCHUK
Mariupol
Ukrainian

Yuliya Volodymyrivna NAUMENKO

Shrapnel injuries of high severity to the applicant’s chest, lung and thigh

Applicant recognised as a victim; his injuries assessed by a forensic medical expert

10.

37648/15

Tsybanova and Stepchenko v. Russia and Ukraine

21/07/2015

Mariya Yefymivna TSYBANOVA
Mariupol
Ukrainian
Igor Oleksandrovych STEPCHENKO
Mariupol
Ukrainian

Yuliya Volodymyrivna NAUMENKO

Shrapnel injuries of medium severity to Ms Tsybanova’s face, back and chest; shrapnel injuries of low severity to Mr Stepchenko’s face, chest shoulder and thigh

Both applicants recognised as victims and interviewed; their injuries assessed by a forensic medical expert

11.

37719/15

Kalinkin v. Russia and Ukraine

24/07/2015

Stepan Leonidovych KALINKIN
Mariupol
Ukrainian

Yuliya Volodymyrivna NAUMENKO

Shrapnel injuries of high severity to the applicant’s chest and stomach area

Applicant recognised as a victim; his injuries assessed by a forensic medical expert

12.

38476/15

Kulbaka v. Russia and Ukraine

25/07/2015

Valentyna Ivanivna

KULBAKA

Mariupol
Ukrainian

Yuliya Volodymyrivna NAUMENKO

Shrapnel injuries of medium severity to the applicant’s face and thigh

Applicant recognised as a victim; her injuries assessed by a forensic medical expert

13.

41854/15

Kosyy v. Russia and Ukraine

14/08/2015

Sergiy Anatoliyovych

KOSYY

Mariupol
Ukrainian

Yuliya Volodymyrivna NAUMENKO

Shrapnel injuries of high severity to the applicant’s chest and lung

Applicant recognised as a victim; his injuries assessed by a forensic medical expert

14.

39761/16

Shchurenko v. Russia and Ukraine

26/06/2016

Iryna Valeriyivna SHCHURENKOMariupol
Ukrainian

Yuliya Volodymyrivna NAUMENKO

Shrapnel injuries of high severity to the applicant’s head and leg

Applicant recognised as a victim; her injuries assessed by a forensic medical expert

15.

42068/19

Boklagova and Boklagov v. Russia and Ukraine

30/07/2019

Svitlana Ivanivna BOKLAGOVA
Mariupol
Ukrainian

Vasyl Andriyovych BOKLAGOV
Mariupol
Ukrainian

Yuliya Volodymyrivna NAUMENKO

Shrapnel injuries of high severity to Ms Boklagova’s pelvis and shoulder, traumatic amputation of both legs; shrapnel injuries of medium severity to Mr Boklagov’s feet and legs

Mr Boklagov recognised as a victim; the injuries of both applicants assessed by a forensic medical expert

16.

45969/21

Ivashchenko v. Russia and Ukraine

03/08/2021

Valentyna Sergiyivna IVASHCHENKO
Mariupol
Ukrainian

Yuliya Volodymyrivna NAUMENKO

Shrapnel injuries of high severity to the applicant’s thighs

Applicant recognised as a victim; her injuries assessed by a forensic medical expert