CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 décembre 2024

.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 } Published on 23 December 2024   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 38146/21 Volodymyr Oleksandrovych KUZNETSOV against Ukraine lodged on 21 July 2021 communicated on 4 December 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application was lodged by a well-known Ukrainian painter whose works were mostly linked to Ukrainian history and culture often disclosing sharp social problems of present times. In 2013 the applicant was invited by the State-owned gallery “Mystetskyi Arsenal” to paint a mural “Doomsday” on one of the walls for a future exhibition. A day before the opening of the exhibition, the mural was painted over in black, and the applicant was not admitted to the building. The administration of the gallery explained that he failed to finish his work on time. A few years later, the ex-director of the gallery wrote an article confessing therein that she had decided to destroy the mural since the exhibition had been supported by Orthodox Church while the mural had depicted priests in a hell pot. In March 2015 the applicant instituted proceedings against the gallery seeking compensation for the violation of his copyright. By a judgment of 9   September 2015, upheld on appeal and in cassation, the applicant was awarded 1,000 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH; about 38 euros (EUR)) in respect of non-pecuniary damage; the remainder of his claim was rejected. The final court decision in these proceedings was delivered on 6 July 2016. In May 2017 the applicant instituted proceedings against the gallery seeking compensation for the act of censorship. The first-instance court found for the applicant, but the appellate court overruled holding that his arguments were of “subjective nature” and did not indicate the existence of any censorship. The latter decision was upheld by the Supreme Court in its final decision of 24 February 2021. In June 2018 the applicant instituted defamation proceedings against the ex-director of the gallery seeking to refute the allegedly untrue information having been disseminated about him. By a final decision dated 6 December 2021 the Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts granting the applicant’s claim in part of some of the contested statements which were unrelated to the purported motives for the destruction of his work. The applicant complains under Article 10 of the Convention that his freedom of expression was infringed due to the destruction of his work by the administration of the gallery. According to the applicant, such measure amounted to a kind of censorship prohibited by law, it did not pursue any legitimate aim and was not necessary in a democratic society. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of artistic expression, within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention?   2.     If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 10 § 2 of the Convention?