CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 29 juin 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sE52D2154 { width:94.94%; border-collapse:collapse } .s687C3E44 { width:8.18%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s9D56672A { width:26.7%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s4CE20BBB { width:28.72%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sE6099748 { width:19.54%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s922CFB6E { width:16.86%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s7085221E { width:8.18%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s78D2DD96 { width:26.7%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sDB35722B { width:28.72%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s8304F361 { width:19.54%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF6FEA060 { width:16.86%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 3 October 2022   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 59884/13 Maksym Oleksandrovych BUTKEVYCH and Zakrevska against Ukraine lodged on 12 September 2013 communicated on 29 June 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application mainly concerns the complaints of Mr Butkevych and Ms   Zakrevska in respect of court orders banning any public assembly in front of the Prosecutor General’s Office in Kyiv on the basis of which they were prevented from holding such assemblies in December 2012 and March 2013. The applicants invoke Articles 5 §   1, 10 and 11 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     In so far as Ms Zekrevska’s three-hour apprehension at police station on 18 March 2013 is concerned, was she deprived of her liberty in violation of Article   5 §   1 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia , no. 25965/04, § 317, ECHR 2010 (extracts))? In particular, did the deprivation of liberty fall within the ambit of paragraph (c) or any other paragraph of this provision?   2.     As regards the events which the applicants planned to organise on 27   December 2012, 14 March 2013 and 18 March 2013, has there been an interference with the applicants’ freedom of expression, in particular the right to impart information and ideas, 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 Novikova and Others v. Russia , nos. 25501/07 and 4 others, § 91, 26 April 2016)?   3.     As regards the same envisaged events, 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 (see, Lashmankin and Others v.   Russia , nos. 57818/09 and 14 others, §§ 421 and 423, 7   February 2017 and Kablis v. Russia , nos. 48310/16 and 59663/17, § 53, 30   April 2019)?   4.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Bączkowski and   Others v. Poland , no. 1543/06, § 83, 3 May 2007)? Appendix No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality Place of residence 1. Maksym Oleksandrovych BUTKEVYCH 1966 Ukrainian Kyiv 2. Yevgeniya Oleksandrivna ZAKREVSKA 1980 Ukrainian Kyiv