Published on 20 November 2023

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 10479/16 Oleksiy Valeriyovych NAYDYONOV and Olga Igorivna VEDUTENKO against Ukraine lodged on 5 February 2016 communicated on 3 November 2023

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the applicants’ right to conduct a peaceful demonstration (Articles 6 and 11 of the Convention).

The office of the President of Ukraine is located at 11 Bankova Street in Kyiv. Check points and fences are located at the beginning and the end of the street. One checkpoint is located 150 meters from the entrance to the office and another is located 350 meters from the entrance.

On 2 June 2015 the applicants informed the Kyiv City Administration that they were planning to hold, until 31 December 2015, a peaceful assembly in front of the President’s office.

On 2-4 June 2015 the applicants were allowed to enter Bankova street and hold a demonstration in front of the entrance, but a number of police officers were located between them and the entrance. On 5 June 2015 the applicants were not allowed to enter Bankova street and approach the entrance to the office.

On 8 June 2015 the applicants instituted judicial proceedings requesting the Kyiv District Administrative Court to order the police to stop preventing them from entering Bankova street and holding a demonstration near the entrance. On 17 June 2015 the court found in favour of the applicants and allowed them to hold their demonstration in front of the entrance. On 17 and 18 June 2015 the applicants were again denied access to Bankova street. On 26 June 2015 the court, of its own motion, reviewed its decision of 17 June 2015. The court ordered that the applicants be allowed to demonstrate near the check points located at the beginning and the end of Bankova street, but they were not allowed to enter the street and approach the entrance. The applicants appealed against the decision of 26 June 2015, but to no avail.

The applicants complain about a restriction of their right to freedom of assembly, envisaged by Article 11. They also complain under Article 6, that the decision of 26 June 2015 was taken in their absence, and that they were not able to present their arguments to the court. They also complain that the review of the decision of 17 June 2015 constituted “an appeal in disguise” and was unlawful.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of their civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? Was the principle of legal certainty ensured in the present case? Was there a violation of the applicants’ right to adversarial proceedings?

2. Has there been an interference with the applicants’ freedom of peaceful assembly, within the meaning of Article 11 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 11 § 2?