ECtHR declares inadmissible Donetsk resident's complaint against Ukraine over 2014 shelling
The European Court of Human Rights has declared inadmissible the application "Maslova v. Ukraine," in which a Donetsk resident complained that Ukrainian forces destroyed her apartment in an artillery shelling on 9 August 2014. The court rejected all complaints for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies under Article 35 of the Convention, finding that the applicant had made no attempt to bring her case to national courts despite travelling regularly to Ukrainian government-controlled territory.
Key points
- The case is identified as Maslova v. Ukraine.
- The applicant alleged her apartment in Donetsk was destroyed by Ukrainian artillery shelling on 9 August 2014.
- The applicant's interests were represented by a lawyer practising in Moscow.
- The ECtHR rejected all complaints for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
- The court found that Ukraine had created legal frameworks and specialised units capable of investigating such shelling incidents and that relocated courts were effective and accessible.
- The court attributed the alleged ineffectiveness of any investigation to the applicant's own inaction and lack of due diligence, not to the state.
- The information was reported by Yevropeiska Pravda and government commissioner for ECtHR matters Margaryta Sokorenko.
Why it matters
The ruling establishes a named precedent — Maslova v. Ukraine — affirming that Ukraine has built functioning legal mechanisms to investigate wartime shelling and that domestic courts relocated from the east remain accessible. By placing responsibility on the applicant's own failure to pursue national remedies rather than on the state, the decision reinforces Ukraine's position that its judicial system has continued to function despite the disruption caused by the conflict.
What happened
The European Court of Human Rights declared inadmissible the application of a Donetsk resident who alleged that Ukrainian government forces destroyed her apartment in an artillery shelling on 9 August 2014. The applicant submitted supporting documents including passport copies, inheritance and ownership certificates, a house register, a damage report and photographs, and complained that she could not exercise her rights because state institutions in eastern Ukraine, including courts, had suspended operations after being relocated to Ukrainian government-controlled territory. She also claimed she had been forced to relocate, but did not state where she moved or provide evidence of relocation. Her interests were represented by a lawyer practising in Moscow.
The ECtHR rejected all complaints under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. The court confirmed that Ukraine had created legal frameworks and specialised units capable of investigating shelling incidents of the kind described, and found that the relocated courts are effective and accessible. It noted that the applicant had made no attempt to turn to national courts, even though it was documented that she regularly travelled from Donetsk to Ukrainian government-controlled territory. The court concluded that any alleged ineffectiveness of the investigation was caused primarily by the applicant's own inaction and lack of due diligence, not by the state.
The decision was reported by Yevropeiska Pravda and by Ukraine's government commissioner for ECtHR matters, Margaryta Sokorenko, on her Facebook page.
How Ukrainian sources describe it
Ukrainian-language coverage frames the case as a complaint against Ukraine over alleged shelling by Ukrainian forces and emphasises that the ECtHR declared the application inadmissible. Reports consistently identify the source of the information as Yevropeiska Pravda and government commissioner Margaryta Sokorenko.
Background
The applicant's interests were represented by a lawyer practising in Moscow. The decision comes amid broader Council of Europe discussions: in July, the ECHR found that Russia violated property rights and the right to a fair trial in a case concerning the seizure of land plots from owners in occupied Sevastopol, and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has proposed a mechanism to transfer frozen Russian funds to Ukraine based on ECHR decisions.