The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights, in its historic judgment in Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia (9 July 2025), delivered a sweeping condemnation of the Russian Federation for what it characterized as multiple, flagrant, and coordinated violations of the European Convention on Human Rights across Ukrainian territory between 2014 and 2022. At the heart of the case was the assertion that Russia bore responsibility not merely for isolated acts of aggression but for systemic practices—spanning indiscriminate military assaults, extrajudicial killings, torture, forced disappearances, suppression of civil liberties, and the forced displacement and indoctrination of civilians—many of which the Court explicitly characterized as constituting State policy. The scale and gravity of the judgment are without precedent in the Court’s history, both for the scope of violations found and for their attribution to a Contracting Party that, by the conclusion of the proceedings, had formally exited the Council of Europe.
The Court first affirmed its jurisdiction ratione temporis, holding that it remained competent to assess all acts up to 16 September 2022, when Russia ceased to be a High Contracting Party. Crucially, the Court established that Russia exercised effective control over the separatist-controlled “Donetsk People’s Republic” (DPR) and “Luhansk People’s Republic” (LPR), and, after the 24 February 2022 invasion, over large swathes of Ukrainian territory. It found that this control entailed legal responsibility not only for actions taken by Russian armed forces but also for those of proxy forces, local authorities, and administrative structures imposed or tolerated by the occupying State.
One of the most devastating episodes examined by the Court was the downing of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 in July 2014. The Court held Russia responsible for a breach of Article 2, both in its substantive and procedural dimensions. It found that the missile that struck the civilian aircraft had been launched from a Buk-TELAR system transported from Russia into Eastern Ukraine and returned thereafter, and that its use—an unjustified and deliberate attack—was in violation of both international humanitarian law and the Convention. The Russian authorities not only failed to prevent the incident, despite knowledge of the weapon’s presence and potential danger, but actively obstructed the subsequent international investigation, disseminated fabricated information, and refused to cooperate with the Joint Investigation Team (JIT). The suffering of victims’ relatives, prolonged by the State’s denial and deception, was recognized as a violation of Article 3 (inhuman treatment), while the lack of effective remedies constituted a violation of Article 13.
Beyond MH17, the Court identified a coordinated administrative practice—a term denoting repeated violations officially tolerated or supported by authorities—of unlawful military violence across Ukraine. The judgment recounts a harrowing catalogue of atrocities: indiscriminate shelling of civilian areas; the siege of cities like Mariupol; extrajudicial executions of civilians and combatants hors de combat; widespread use of torture, including sexual violence and rape used as a weapon of war; arbitrary detention in degrading conditions; forced labor; and the destruction and expropriation of civilian property. These violations were not sporadic or accidental but were found to have been carried out with strategic intent and consistency across the affected regions.
One of the most disturbing findings of the Court relates to the forcible transfer and adoption of Ukrainian children into Russia.
Drawing from extensive evidence, the Court determined that the Russian Federation had, even before the full-scale invasion, begun a systematic practice of transferring children—many of them orphans or separated from their caregivers—to Russian territory, where they were subjected to automatic naturalization, ideological re-education, and, in many cases, adoption. These acts were deemed unlawful under international humanitarian law, and the resulting trauma and dislocation constituted violations of Articles 3, 5, and 8 of the Convention, as well as of Protocol No. 4. The Court stressed the enduring psychological harm caused by the indefinite separation of children from their families, often in contexts devoid of legal justification or procedural safeguards.
The Court also addressed Russia’s widespread suppression of civil liberties.
Religious minorities not aligned with the Russian Orthodox Church under the Moscow Patriarchate were persecuted, their churches seized, and their clergy detained or murdered (Article 9). Freedom of expression was curtailed through censorship laws, media shutdowns, arrests of journalists, and the criminalization of dissenting speech—even on social media (Article 10). Peaceful assemblies were violently dispersed (Article 11), and Ukrainian-language education was systematically dismantled in favor of a Russified curriculum designed to serve the occupying power’s ideological objectives (Article 2 of Protocol No. 1).
Importantly, the Court found that all these practices were accompanied by a failure to provide effective remedies and were marked by discriminatory intent (Articles 13 and 14).
Victims were targeted on the basis of nationality and political opinion. The Russian Federation’s refusal to investigate credible allegations, provide redress, or even engage meaningfully with the Court constituted a violation of Article 38 (duty to cooperate with the Court), further compounding its legal culpability.
Under Article 46 of the Convention, the Court ordered Russia to take immediate steps to release all persons unlawfully detained in the occupied territories and to cooperate with international mechanisms to identify and return the deported children. While the matter of just satisfaction (Article 41) was postponed, the judgment signals that future awards will take into account broader international developments and potential avenues for enforcement.
In sum, this judgment stands as a comprehensive legal indictment of Russia’s conduct in Ukraine during the period under review. It not only reaffirms the applicability of the European Convention on Human Rights in times of armed conflict but also affirms the principle that states cannot evade accountability for systemic violations by acting through proxies or by invoking the fog of war. The Court’s reasoning draws a sharp line against impunity and represents a critical affirmation of international law’s capacity to speak to crimes committed under the cover of state sovereignty.
Certainly. Below is a detailed and discursive summary in English of the judgment in the case of?Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia, issued by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) on 9 July 2025. All major legal findings and factual determinations have been preserved, and the narrative has been rendered in a cohesive, analytical form.
I. Context and scope of the judgment
The case encompasses events beginning in Eastern Ukraine in 2014, escalating into a full-scale invasion on 24 February 2022. The applicants—the Governments of Ukraine and the Netherlands—alleged that Russia had committed systemic and egregious violations of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), including extrajudicial killings, torture, forced disappearances, destruction of property, and suppression of civil liberties. In particular, the Netherlands claimed violations arising from the downing of Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 on 17 July 2014, which killed 298 civilians, most of them Dutch nationals.
II. Jurisdiction and attribution
The Court concluded that Russia exercised effective control over separatist-controlled territories in Eastern Ukraine (DPR and LPR) and, from 24 February 2022, over areas invaded and occupied by Russian armed forces. It held that:
- The actions of separatist forces were attributable to Russia due to its decisive influence and operational command.
- The Russian State bore responsibility for violations both inside Ukraine and within its own territory (notably relating to the deportation of Ukrainian children).
III. Downing of flight MH17 (Articles 2, 3, 13)
The Court found Russia internationally responsible for the:
- Substantive violation of Article 2 (right to life): Russia breached both its negative obligation (not to take life unjustifiably) and its positive obligation (to protect life) by transferring and operating a Buk-TELAR missile system used to shoot down MH17. The attack was unlawful under international humanitarian law (IHL) and could not be justified as an act of war.
- Procedural violation of Article 2: Russia failed to conduct an effective investigation. Instead, it engaged in disinformation, denied involvement, obstructed the Joint Investigation Team (JIT), and refused legal cooperation.
- Violation of Article 13 (effective remedy): Relatives of victims had no access to effective legal remedies in Russia.
- Violation of Article 3 (inhuman treatment): The continued suffering of the families, amplified by Russia’s denials and obstruction, amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment.
IV. Systemic and administrative practices in occupied Ukraine
The Court documented the existence of “administrative practices”—that is, repeated violations officially tolerated or encouraged by state authorities—in several areas:
(1) Unlawful Military Attacks (Articles 2, 3, 1 Protocol No. 1)
Russia conducted a deliberate campaign of indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks against civilian populations, including residential areas, hospitals, and schools. These operations were strategically coordinated and aimed at asserting control—not mere military chaos. Russia failed to take precautions to protect civilians, particularly during sieges (e.g., Mariupol).
(2) Extrajudicial Executions and Killings (Article 2)
The Court confirmed a pattern of summary executions of civilians and Ukrainian military personnel hors de combat in occupied territories.
(3) Torture and Ill-treatment (Article 3)
Widespread torture, sexual violence, and degrading treatment—particularly in detention facilities—were found to be coordinated state policy. Rape was used as a weapon of war. Families of abducted individuals experienced prolonged suffering due to enforced disappearances and lack of information.
(4) Forced Labour (Article 4 §2)
The Court found Russia responsible for compelling civilians in occupied territories to work without consent or remuneration.
(5) Arbitrary Detention (Article 5)
Civilians were detained without legal basis, judicial review, or procedural safeguards. Conditions of detention were grossly inadequate.
(6) Deportations and Forced Displacements (Article 8)
Russia forcibly transferred civilians from occupied Ukraine, often under coercion and fear. These displacements were not lawful evacuations under IHL.
(7) Religious Persecution (Article 9)
Religious groups, except the Moscow Patriarchate-aligned church, faced bans, property confiscation, and violence. Religious leaders were abducted and murdered.
(8) Suppression of Free Expression (Article 10)
The Court found systematic interference with press freedom: detention and murder of journalists, censorship laws, media shutdowns, and reprisals for expressing pro-Ukrainian views—even on social media.
(9) Suppression of Assembly (Article 11)
Peaceful protests were violently dispersed, particularly in the early months of the occupation in 2022.
(10) Property Destruction (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1; Article 8)
Widespread looting and destruction of civilian homes and businesses was sanctioned or tolerated by occupying authorities.
(11) Suppression of Ukrainian Education (Article 2 of Protocol No. 1)
Ukrainian-language teaching was abolished and replaced with indoctrination aligned with the Russian narrative. Parents’ convictions were disregarded.
V. Forcible transfer and adoption of children (Articles 3, 5, 8; Protocol No. 4)
Perhaps the most harrowing findings concern the forcible transfer and adoption of Ukrainian children into Russia:
- Russia orchestrated a systematic practice—pre- and post-invasion—of abducting children, placing them in Russian custody, and facilitating adoption.
- Russian nationality was automatically imposed to expedite integration.
- The trauma of separation, indefinite placement under foreign authority, and denial of family reunification constituted serious violations of Articles 3 and 5.
- These transfers did not qualify as lawful evacuations under IHL.
VI. Discrimination and failure to provide remedies (Articles 14, 13)
- Russia systematically discriminated on the basis of national origin and political opinion, failing to secure Convention rights equally.
- It refused to investigate or redress credible allegations of wrongdoing. Article 13 was violated in conjunction with almost all the substantive articles.
VII. Procedural violations and non-cooperation (Articles 38, 46)
Russia failed its obligation under Article 38 to cooperate with the Court, refusing to provide documents or participate meaningfully in proceedings.
Under Article 46, the Court required that:
- All persons unlawfully detained in occupied Ukraine be released or returned.
- Russia cooperate in establishing an international mechanism to identify and reunite children abducted from Ukraine with their families or guardians.
The issue of just satisfaction (Article 41) was deferred.
VIII. Conclusion
This judgment establishes Russia’s responsibility for some of the most serious violations of human rights on European soil since the Second World War. Through a meticulous review of military, legal, and humanitarian evidence, the Court pierces through layers of denial and propaganda to affirm state responsibility for war crimes, human rights violations, and institutionalised repression.