CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 septembre 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } Communicated on 7 September 2020 Published on 28 September 2020   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 6781/13 Petro Mykolayovych ZHVAVYY against Ukraine lodged on 14 January 2013 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns, in substance, an alleged interference with the applicant’s right to impart information. In February 2012 the Chairman of the High Council of Justice initiated defamation proceedings against the applicant, arguing that the applicant had made insulting and false statements in his written submissions to the courts, police and prosecutor’s office in the course of his litigations with the Chairman’s wife and other persons with whom he had co-founded an enterprise. The courts found against the applicant and ordered him to pay 160,000 Ukrainian hryvnias (about 15,000 euros at the time) for having insulted the claimant. The final decision in the defamation case was delivered by the Higher Specialised Court on Civil and Criminal Matters on 31 August 2012.     QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression, in particular his right to 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?