CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 août 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } Published on 25 August 2025   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 43918/18 Igor Oleksandrovych SURADYEYEV against Ukraine lodged on 7 September 2018 communicated on 8 August 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the applicant’s complaint about domestic courts’ alleged failure to protect his   right to reputation, raising an issue under Article   8 of the Convention. On 24 September 2015 T., a businessman and candidate in upcoming local elections, allegedly discovered that his car was not responding to his key and appeared to have been opened by someone else. Two men were sitting in a nearby vehicle, working on a laptop. Suspecting that they had broken into his car, T., assisted by his son and several bystanders, blocked the nearby vehicle and attempted to forcibly open it. The applicant, a police officer, and his colleague were in the vicinity and intervened – allegedly in an attempt to calm T. and the others, who were acting aggressively, and to prevent them from damaging the nearby vehicle or harming its occupants. This intervention led to an altercation between the applicant and T. As it later became clear, after the arrival of senior police officials at the scene, the two men inside the blocked vehicle were undercover officers involved in an ongoing investigation. Upon opening the trunk of his car at the place, T. discovered a package containing a powdery substance, which was later confirmed to be narcotics. The following day, several people appeared at the scene holding a coffin bearing the inscription: “To [applicant] from the mothers of children killed by amphetamines,” along with signs reading “Stop Amphetamines!” On 28 September 2015 T. held a press conference regarding the incident, during which he alleged that the drugs had been planted in his car by the police – an act he claimed was politically motivated. The press conference was covered by local media, including the TV channel “VIZIT,” as well as in a bulletin published and distributed locally by T.’s political party. The article, entitled “Political-narcotics scandal”, included the following passages referring to statements made by T. during the press conference:   “On September 28 [T.], during a press conference, announced the launch of the campaign ‘Stop Amphetamines!’. According to him, the police officers who, he claims, planted drugs in his car were ‘just trying to make money’. ... ‘I already know of similar cases when drugs were planted and then people paid money to hush it up,’ [T.] said, and named by surname the police officer he suspected - [the applicant]. It was [the applicant] who was the first to show up at the scene of the incident and, according to [T.], it was [the applicant] who threatened him and his son when they began to raise the alarm. ... ‘I filed a complaint with the SBU and the Prosecutor’s Office. There, I stated that he [referring to the applicant] threatened to kill me... Over the course of those three days, I found out many things, and now I understand that this werewolf in uniform [referring to the applicant] runs a well-developed network for selling amphetamines. They are producing amphetamines here and distributing them using unmarked police vehicles,’ T. said. ‘At this point, I assume that the provocation may have been organised by [the applicant], and perhaps other police officers should not be blamed’.” At a later stage, the police held a press conference in response, to which the applicant participated, during which they denied his involvement in criminal conduct. In January 2016 the applicant filed a civil defamation claim against T. with the Avtozavodskyi District Court of Kremenchuk, seeking protection of his honour, dignity, and professional reputation, as well as compensation for non ‑ pecuniary damage. In its final judgment of 25 June 2017, the Supreme Court upheld the lower courts’ findings against the applicant, characterising T.’s statements as value judgments – his personal opinions and interpretations based on the events in question. The courts also noted the broader margin of criticism to which the applicant, as a public official, was subject. Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, the applicant complains that T. accused him of committing a serious crime in statements made during a press conference, and that the domestic courts failed to protect his right to reputation. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention? In the affirmative, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention?