ECHR declares application against Ukraine regarding Donetsk shelling inadmissible
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has declared inadmissible a complaint against Ukraine filed in connection with the destruction of the applicant's apartment in Donetsk during shelling on August 9, 2014.
The Court released the ruling on September 10, 2026. A three-judge committee unanimously declared the complaint inadmissible.
"The applicant, a resident of Donetsk, claimed that on August 9, 2014, artillery shelling by Ukrainian government forces destroyed the apartment she owned and lived in. In support of her claim, she provided copies of her passport, a certificate of inheritance, a certificate of ownership, a household register, a damage report, and photographs," said Margaryta Sokorenko, the Government Agent before the ECHR, in a Facebook post.
The applicant also lodged a complaint under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention, claiming she was unable to exercise her rights due to the suspension of state institutions in eastern Ukraine—specifically courts, which had been relocated to Ukrainian government-controlled territory.
Furthermore, the woman claimed that the destruction of her property forced her to relocate. However, she did not specify exactly where she had moved, nor did she provide evidence of such relocation.
The ECHR dismissed all complaints on the grounds of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, in accordance with Article 35 § 1 and 4 of the Convention.
The Court noted that the principle of subsidiarity entails an obligation for the applicant to first give national authorities the opportunity to examine the alleged violation. In this context, the ECHR referred to its previous rulings in the cases of A, B and C v. Ireland and Vučković and Others v. Serbia.
At the same time, the Court, citing the judgment in Ryashentseva and Others v. Ukraine of September 9, 2025, noted that Ukraine had established legal mechanisms and specialized units capable of investigating shelling incidents similar to the one described by the applicant.
Furthermore, the ECHR noted that the applicant had not applied to Ukrainian courts, even though—as documented—she regularly traveled from Donetsk to government-controlled territory, and the Court had previously acknowledged the accessibility and functioning of courts relocated from Donetsk. Moreover, upon receiving the complaint, Ukrainian investigative authorities initiated criminal proceedings on their own initiative; however, the applicant failed to cooperate with the investigation or provide materials that could have aided the inquiry.
"The Court’s conclusion: the alleged ineffectiveness of the investigation cannot be attributed to the State, as it stemmed primarily from the applicant’s own inaction—specifically, a lack of due diligence in her dealings with the authorities (mutatis mutandis, Bekoyeva and Others v. Georgia). Finally, the Court dismissed the complaint regarding forced displacement as unfounded," Sokorenko emphasized.
As Sokorenko noted, this judgment upholds the ECtHR’s established case law regarding the accessibility of relocated Ukrainian courts as a domestic legal remedy.
"Strasbourg sees what Ukraine is doing to ensure access to justice, even under unprecedented conditions. And it consistently acknowledges this," the ECHR Agent emphasized.