CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 27 mai 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase }     Communicated on 5 April 2011 and 27   May 2014     FIFTH SECTION Application no. 74768/10 Denis Vadimovich CHERNEGA and others against Ukraine lodged on 17 December 2010   The facts and complaints in this case have been summarised in the Court’s decision, which is available in HUDOC. QUESTIONS   1.     Was there an interference with the applicants’ freedom of peaceful assembly within the meaning of Article 11 § 1 of the Convention in view of the attempts to disperse the protest in which the applicants took part? If so:   1.1.     What were the reasons for not allowing the protest? Were the dispersals of protesters compatible with Article 11 of the Convention? Was the dispersal of the protest lawful in domestic terms? What legitimate aim did it pursue? Was it necessary in a democratic society, in the light of the Court’s case-law under Article 11 of the Convention, especially in the light of the means employed to prevent the demonstrators from holding the protest?   1.2.     Have the applicants exhausted effective domestic remedies in respect of the alleged violation of their right to peaceful assembly? If there was no remedy they could use, was this situation compatible with Article 13 of the Convention?   2.     Was there an effective investigation, as required by Article 3 of the Convention, in respect of the seventh and ninth applicants’ complaints about ill-treatment by black-clothed men with Municipal Guard badges during the dispersals of the protest on 31 May and 2 June 2010? In particular, were those persons identified and brought to responsibility? If not, what measures have been taken towards this end?