CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 avril 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 } Published on 27 April 2026   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 25409/21 Sergiy Valeriyovych NIKITENKO against Ukraine communicated on 10 April 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE On 18 June 2018 the applicant, who was a journalist, was beaten up by unknown persons after he had posted online a video regarding his investigation into activities of M., the Chairman of the Kherson Region Council. Criminal investigation into the attack remains pending. The applicant complains that the investigation has been lengthy and ineffective (Article 3 of the Convention, procedural limb). He further complains under Article 10 of the Convention that he was attacked because he had posted a video about M. The applicant finally alleges, invoking Article   13 of the Convention, that he has no domestic remedies for his complaints under Articles 3 and 10 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Having regard to the procedural protection from inhuman or degrading treatment (see paragraph   131 of Labita v.   Italy [GC], no.   26772/95, ECHR   2000-IV), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article   3 of the Convention?     2.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression, in particular his right to receive and impart information, 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? Did the Government discharge their positive obligation under Article 10 of the Convention to take the necessary measures to investigate the attack on the applicant (see Özgür Gündem v. Turkey no.   23144/93, § 43, ECHR 2000 ‑ III; Dink v. Turkey, nos. 2668/07 and 4 others, § 137, 14   September 2010)?   3. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his Convention complaints, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?