Communicated on 15 December 2020 Published on 11 January 2021

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 44691/13 Aleksandr Anatolyevich PLIVA against Ukraine lodged on 3 July 2013

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns a decision by the Kyiv State Administration to prohibit placement of outdoors advertisement which allegedly had a negative effect on the applicant ’ s business activities.

In his capacity as a private entrepreneur, the applicant was providing services relating to placement of outdoor advertisement in Kyiv.

By its decision of 29 December 2011 the Kyiv State Administration prohibited placement of outdoor advertisement in Kyiv from 1 January 2012 to 1 August 2012. The prohibition was imposed on the ground that during said period a big sports event (FIFA World Cup) was supposed to take place in Kyiv.

At the beginning of 2012, the applicant asked the Kyiv State Administration to issue him two permits to place outdoor advertisement, however, in February 2012 his request was refused with reference to the decision of 29 December 2011.

The applicant instituted proceedings before the Kyiv District Administrative Court seeking to invalidate the decision of 29 December 2011. On 16 July 2012 the court ruled against the applicant. On 28 November 2012 the Kyiv Administrative Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the first instance court. On 23 February 2012 the Higher Administrative Court rejected the applicant ’ s appeal in cassation.

The applicant complains that by adopting the decision of 29 December 2011 and refusing to issue him the permits the authorities violated his rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been an interference with the applicant ’ s freedom of expression, within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 10 § 2 (see, for example, Sekmadienis Ltd. v. Lithuania , no. 69317/14, 30 January 2018, § 73)?

2. Has there been an interference with the applicant ’ s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? If so, was that interference in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, and did it impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (see Tre Traktörer AB v. Sweden , 7 July 1989, § 53, Series A no. 159, Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy, [GC], no. 22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-V, O ’ Sullivan McCarthy Mussel Development Ltd v. Ireland , no. 44460/16 , §§ 85-131, 7 June 2018)?