CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 31 janvier 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 21 February 2022   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 9987/14 Viktor Vsevolodovych BORONENKOV against Ukraine lodged on 5 January 2014 communicated on 31 January 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant was an activist of the political party S. On 17 May 2013 the Zaporizhzhya District Administrative Court prohibited a number of organisations, including the political party S., to organise public events on Mayakovskogo Square on 18 May 2012. On the same day the applicant informed the Zaporizhzhya City Council that on 18 May 2013 he, in his capacity as a private person, would organise an event on Mayakovskogo Square. On 18 May 2013 members of the party S., including the applicant, started the event prohibited by the decision of 17 May 2013. Around 4 p.m. they were informed by the authorities that they had to terminate the event according to this decision. The applicant invited the participants to continue the event which they did. The event lasted until around 10 p.m. On 27 May 2013 a court sentenced the applicant to a fine of about 39   euros for holding a public event contrary to the court decision of 17 May 2013. This decision was upheld on appeal and became final. Before the courts the applicant claimed that he had organised the event on 18 May 2013 in his capacity as a private person and the decision of 17 May 2013 did not apply to him. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant suffered a significant disadvantage because of the fine imposed on him by the court decision of 27 May 2013? 2.   Has there been an interference with the applicant’s 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 (see, for example, Vyerentsov v. Ukraine , no. 20372/11, 11 April 2013 and Lashmankin and Others v. Russia , nos. 57818/09 and 14 others, 7 February 2017)?