CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 mars 2026

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 7 April 2026   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 13635/20 Volodymyr Nazarovych PASIKA against Ukraine lodged on 5 March 2020 communicated on 18 March 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the blocking of access to the applicant’s website, an online blog platform. By a decision of 23 July 2019 an investigative judge of the Pecherskyy District Court of Kyiv granted a request by the prosecutor and ordered that access to nineteen websites, including the applicant’s, be blocked. The judge held, in particular, that one publication hosted on the applicant’s website contained defamatory statements concerning third persons, that this website had been declared material evidence in an ongoing criminal investigation and that blocking access was necessary to preserve such evidence. On 25 November 2019 the applicant’s appeal in which he argued, inter alia , that the wholesale blocking of his website was disproportionate, was dismissed by the Kyiv Court of Appeal as unfounded. The criminal proceedings against the third persons, in the context of which the blocking order was issued, are currently pending before the first-instance court. The applicant complains that the decision to block access to his website was in breach of Article 10 of the Convention.       QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression, in particular his right to impart information and ideas, within the meaning of Article   10 §   1 of the Convention?   2.     If so, was that interference prescribed by law, did it pursue a legitimate aim, and was it necessary in terms of Article   10 §   2 of the Convention?   Insofar as it concerns the applicant’s website, the parties are invited to provide the Court with information on the practical implementation of the above blocking order, in particular whether the website in question was and remains inaccessible to Internet users.