FIFTH SECTIONCASE OF FEDYUKINA v. UKRAINE(Application no. 42906/18)      JUDGMENT STRASBOURG11 December 2025 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Fedyukina v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: María Elósegui, President, Andreas Zünd, Mykola Gnatovskyy, judges,and Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar,Having regard to:the application (no. 42906/18) against Ukraine, lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 29 August 2018 by a Russian national, Ms Kateryna Valeriyivna Fedyukina (“the applicant”), who was born in 1980, lives in Yevpatoriya, and was represented by Mr A. Zhuravel, a lawyer practising in Kyiv;the decision to give notice of the applicant’s complaint under Article 2 of the Convention regarding the allegedly ineffective official investigation into her husband’s death to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Ms M. Sokorenko, of the Ministry of Justice, and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible;the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 20 November 2025,Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE1.  The case concerns the authorities’ alleged failure to conduct an effective investigation into the death of the applicant’s husband as a result of firearms injuries sustained in the course of violent clashes between police and protestors in Kyiv on 18 February 2014. The applicant’s husband was one of the police officers deployed in response to a series of protests which took place in Ukraine between 21 November 2013 and 21 February 2014; the protests are commonly referred to as “Euromaidan” and/or “Maidan” (see Shmorgunov and Others v. Ukraine, nos. 15367/14 and 13 others, §§ 9-17, 21 January 2021). This allegedly resulted in violations of Articles 2 and 13 of the Convention.2.  On 18 February 2014 a criminal investigation was initiated into the death of the applicant’s husband. The investigators examined the applicant’s husband’s body and certain items of clothing, carried out forensic medical and ballistic examinations, and questioned a forensic medical expert and an ambulance station nurse. On 7 March 2014 the proceedings were discontinued on the basis of the Law on preventing the prosecution and punishment of persons in connection with events that took place during peaceful assemblies, and the repeal of certain laws of Ukraine. Under that Law, individuals who had participated in the Euromaidan protests were exempted from criminal liability for certain offences, provided that their actions had been related to the protests. Criminal proceedings in which suspects had not been identified – including the proceedings concerning the death of the applicant’s husband – were to be discontinued.3.  On 27 December 2018, following an application lodged by the applicant, the Pecherskyy District Court of Kyiv overturned the decision of 7 March 2014 and ordered the authorities to resume the investigation. The court found that the decision to discontinue the proceedings had lacked reasoning and that the investigation had been incomplete, given that no investigative or procedural actions had been taken to identify the persons responsible for the death of the applicant’s husband.4.  On 26 June 2019 the investigation regarding the death of the applicant’s husband was merged with that of another ongoing investigation covering a wider range of suspected crimes committed against law‑enforcement officers and military personnel during the Maidan protests.5.  According to the Government, over 1,500 investigative and procedural measures were carried out in order to establish the circumstances surrounding those suspected crimes. The Government did not specify whether any of those investigative measures had concerned the death of the applicant’s husband. There is no indication that any further investigative measures were actually undertaken after the investigation was resumed.6.  In 2021 the applicant twice requested access to the case file, but her request was refused on both occasions. Although those refusals were overturned by a court, the applicant was not granted the requested access.7.  According to the most recent information provided by the Government, the investigation was still ongoing on 26 March 2024.THE COURT’S ASSESSMENTALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONVENTION8.  The applicant complained under Article 2 of the Convention that the official investigation into the death of her husband had been ineffective.Admissibility9.  The Government argued that the applicant’s complaint was premature because the relevant proceedings were still ongoing, and the applicant had not lodged a compensation claim or complained to the domestic authorities regarding any specific shortcomings or any inaction on the part of the investigators.10.  The Court has already examined and dismissed similar objections by the Government in comparable cases (see, for instance, Shmorgunov and Others, cited above, §§ 283-86, 300-03, 405 and 416). Nothing in the Government’s submissions persuades the Court that it should reach a different conclusion in the present case.11.  In the light of the foregoing, the Government’s objections to the admissibility of the applicant’s present complaints under Article 2 must be dismissed.12.  The Court further notes that those complaints are not manifestly ill‑founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, and nor are they inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.Merits13.  The Government submitted that the investigating authorities had immediately opened an official investigation into the death of the applicant’s husband, had examined the incident comprehensively and promptly, and had done everything possible to collect relevant evidence. However, owing to the lack of eyewitnesses to the incident, the limited video and photographic evidence, and the difficulties in contacting victims and witnesses living in the territories occupied by the Russian Federation, the investigators had been unable to identify those responsible for the death of the applicant’s husband.14.  The applicant contended that the State authorities had failed to take appropriate measures to identify witnesses to her husband’s murder, had not provided her with updates on the progress of the investigation, and had limited her access to the domestic case file.15.  The Court has previously held that once the investigative obligation is triggered, compliance with the procedural requirement of Article 2 of the Convention is assessed on the basis of several essential parameters: the adequacy of the investigative measures, the promptness of the investigation, the involvement of the deceased person’s family, and the independence of the investigation. Those elements are inter‑related and each of them, taken separately, does not amount to an end in itself (see Mustafa Tunç and Fecire Tunç v. Turkey [GC], no. 24014/05, § 225, 14 April 2015). Moreover, this is not an obligation of results to be achieved but of means to be employed. The Court accepts that not every investigation is necessarily successful or comes to a conclusion coinciding with the claimant’s account of events. However, an investigation should, in principle, be capable of leading to the establishment of the facts of the case and, if the allegations prove to be true, to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, § 71, ECHR 2002-II).16.  The Court also reiterates that the next of kin of the victim must be involved in the procedure to the extent necessary to safeguard his or her legitimate interests (see, for example, Carabulea v. Romania, no. 45661/99, § 131, 13 July 2010).17.  In the present case, the Court discerns serious shortcomings in how the investigation into the death of the applicant’s husband was conducted. Although during the initial stages of the investigation in 2014 the investigators collected certain basic evidence and information regarding the incident (see paragraph 2 above), no information was provided to the Court regarding any specific investigative measures taken in connection to the applicant’s case following the resumption of the investigation in 2018 (see paragraphs 3 and 5 above).18.  As at 26 March 2024 – that is, more than ten years after the death of the applicant’s husband – the investigation was still ongoing. Even though the Court acknowledges the complexity of the case and the objective difficulties faced by the authorities in handling Maidan‑related investigations, it has not been shown that the authorities have taken adequate measures to overcome those difficulties (see Shmorgunov and Others, cited above, §§ 387-89 and 413-15). In that regard, the Court reiterates that the effectiveness of an investigation implies a requirement of promptness and reasonable expedition. Even where there may be obstacles or difficulties which prevent progress in an investigation in a particular situation, a prompt response by the authorities is vital in maintaining public confidence in their adherence to the rule of law and in preventing any appearance of collusion in, or tolerance of, unlawful acts. Moreover, with the passage of time the prospects that any effective investigation can be undertaken will increasingly diminish (see Goryayeva v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 58656/10, § 31, 6 October 2016).19.  The Court further notes that the applicant was repeatedly denied access to the case file (see paragraph 6 above) and thus had no meaningful opportunity to participate in the proceedings aimed at establishing the circumstances of her husband’s death.20.  In the light of the foregoing, the Court finds that no effective official investigation was conducted into the death of the applicant’s husband, Accordingly, there has been a violation of the procedural limb of Article 2 of the Convention.ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION21.  Having regard to its above‑mentioned findings under Article 2 of the Convention (see paragraphs 13-20 above), the Court considers that it has examined the main legal questions raised in the present case, and that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the admissibility and merits of the applicant’s related complaints under Article 13 of the Convention (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014; Shmorgunov and Others, cited above, §§ 522-23; Ribcheva and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 37801/16 and 2 others, §§ 181-186, 30 March 2021; and, for a more recent authority, Machalikashvili and Others v. Georgia, no. 32245/19, § 114, 19 January 2023).APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION22.  The applicant claimed 37,385 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage for the loss of financial support in connection with the death of her husband, EUR 50,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, and EUR 1,500 in respect of costs and expenses incurred in the domestic proceedings and before the Court. The applicant requested that the latter sum be paid directly into her lawyer’s bank account.23.  The Government contested those claims.24.  The Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects that claim. However, judging on an equitable basis, it awards the applicant EUR 12,000 in respect of non‑pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable.25.  Furthermore, having regard to the documents in its possession, the Court also considers it reasonable to award the applicant EUR 1,000 for the costs and expenses incurred in the proceedings at the national level and before the Court, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant. That amount is to be paid directly into her lawyer’s bank account. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,Declares the applicant’s complaint under Article 2 of the Convention admissible;Holds that there has been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention under its procedural limb;Holds that there is no need to examine the admissibility and merits of the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention;Holds(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of settlement:(i)  EUR 12,000 (twelve thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non‑pecuniary damage;(ii)  EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses, the latter amount to be paid directly into the bank account indicated by Mr A. Zhuravel;(b)  that from the expiry of the above‑mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period, plus three percentage points;Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.Done in English, and notified in writing on 11 December 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.  Martina Keller María Elósegui Deputy Registrar President