CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 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 } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 18 May 2026   FOURTH SECTION Applications nos. 6579/23 and 4065/25 Iryna Bronislavivna DANYLOVYCH against Russia lodged on 15 January 2023 and 28 January 2025 respectively communicated on 28 April 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the alleged unlawful detention of a Ukrainian journalist and human rights defender, Ms Iryna Danylovych, in Crimea, as well as her designation as a “foreign agent”. In application no. 6759/23, the applicant submitted that she had been apprehended by agents of the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation (hereinafter – “the FSB”) on 29 April 2022 and held incommunicado in an FSB building in Simferopol. On 7 May 2022 a report was drawn up and her pre-trial detention was ordered by the “Kyivskyy District Court of Simferopol”. She was suspected of being in unlawful possession of explosives. Her detention continued in the Simferopol pre-trial detention facility (“SIZO-1 of Simferopol”) and was extended on several occasions. The most recent extension of the pre-trial detention until 3   February 2023 was approved on 7 September 2022 by the appeal decision of the “Supreme Court of Crimea”. On 28 December 2022 the “Kyivskyy District Court of Simferopol” found the applicant guilty on charges of possessing an explosive device. In application no. 4065/25, the applicant submitted that on 3 June 2022 her name was included in the “foreign agents” registry by the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation. She appealed against this decision, but her appeal was unsuccessful, and the final decision was delivered by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 24 October 2024. Relying on Article 5 of the Convention, the applicant complains that her detention was based on the provisions of Russian law and was therefore unlawful (application no. 6759/23). Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, the applicant complains that her designation as a “foreign agent” and the resulting public exposure, excessive reporting obligations, and restrictions on her professional activity constituted an unjustified interference with her right to respect for her private life (application no. 4065/25). She further complains that the above restrictions breached her right to freedom of expression guaranteed under Article 10 of the Convention. Lastly, relying on Articles 14 and 18 of the Convention, the applicant complains that she was discriminated against on the basis of her political opinions and that the ulterior purpose of designating her a “foreign agent” was to hinder her human rights activism.   COMMON QUESTION TO THE PARTIES   Has the applicant complied with the admissibility requirements set forth in Article 35 of the Convention?   CASE-SPECIFIC QUESTIONS   Application no. 6579/23   Was the applicant deprived of her liberty in breach of Article 5 §   1 of the Convention (see Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea) [GC], nos. 20958/14 and 38334/18, §§ 943-46 and 998, 25 June 2024?   Application no. 4065/25   1.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for her private life, contrary to Article   8 of the Convention, on account of her being designated as a “foreign agent” and its consequences? (see Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea) , cited above, §§ 943-46 , and Kobaliya and Others v. Russia , nos.   39446/16 and 106 others, §§ 103-16, 22 October 2024)?   2.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression, contrary to Article   10 of the Convention (see Ukraine v. Russia ( re Crimea) , cited above, §§ 943-46, and Kobaliya and Others , cited above, §§   67 ‑ 98)?   3.     Has the applicant suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of her Convention rights on account of being designated a “foreign agent”, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Articles 8 and 10?   4.     Were the restrictions imposed by the State on the applicant, purportedly under Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention, applied for purposes other than those envisaged by these provisions, in breach of Article 18 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Ukraine v. Russia ( re Crimea) , cited above, §§   1353 ‑ 82, and   Anti-Corruption Foundation (FBK) and Others v. Russia , nos.   13505/20 and 138 others, §§ 139-48, 16 December 2025)?