CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 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 4 May 2026   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 49206/20 Ruslan Stanislavovych RADETSKYY against Ukraine lodged on 26 October 2020 communicated on 13 April 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns an alleged failure of a domestic court to protect the applicant’s right to reputation. In December 2017 the applicant, at the time Deputy Head of the National Agency on Corruption Prevention, instituted civil defamation proceedings against the owner of a Ukrainian media outlet “ Obozrevatel ”. His claim concerned a series of online publications relating to a February 2017 incident, in which the police stopped the applicant on suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol, and drew up an administrative-offence report for refusing to undergo a breathalyser test. According to the applicant, those publications alleged, inter alia , that he had been “caught” by the police while drunk driving and referred to him as a “troublemaker” (“ бешкетник ”). One of these publications was also accompanied by video footage from the patrol police officer’s body camera recorded at the scene. By a final decision of 1 April 2020, the Supreme Court overturned the rulings of the lower courts given in the applicant’s favour and dismissed his claim. It relied mainly on the broader margin of criticism to which the applicant, as a public official, was subject. The applicant complains that that by rejecting his claim, the Supreme Court failed to protect his right to reputation. He also complains that he was not served with a copy of the defendant’s submissions and that the Supreme Court’s decision was not properly reasoned. The applicant relies on Articles   6 § 1 and 8 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Is Article 8 of the Convention applicable in the present case? In the affirmative, has the respondent State complied with its positive obligation to protect the applicant’s right to respect for his reputation under Article   8 of the Convention?   2.     In respect of the applicant’s complaints under Article   6   §   1 of the Convention, namely the alleged failure by the Supreme Court to address his arguments and to respect the principle of equality of arms, do they disclose a violation of this provision, as alleged by the applicant?