CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 novembre 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sEA75BD01 { width:106.24%; border-collapse:collapse } .sB0CB7F3F { width:7.08%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sCDF5403D { width:25.98%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s4D686973 { width:17.6%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s7B921190 { width:21.14%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sD56DEDDB { width:28.2%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sB4371AF0 { width:7.08%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s842615BF { width:25.98%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sEA39543F { width:17.6%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s83BDA4F6 { width:21.14%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA8FEFBDB { width:28.2%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s9252AC04 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } Communicated on 18 November 2020 Published on 7 December 2020   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 73596/13 Oleksandra Igorivna SVERDLOVA and Olena Olegivna SHEVCHENKO against Ukraine lodged on 15 November 2013 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns an alleged interference in the applicants’ freedom of expression and peaceful assembly on account of the domestic court’s decision prohibiting any person from holding any assembly in the city centre on the date chosen by the applicants for carrying out a march in support of LGBT community. The imposed restrictions prompted change of the route of the march (away from the city center) on short notice which in its turn resulted in a low turnout of the participants. Relying on Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention , the applicants complain that the restrictions imposed by the domestic court following a request by the local authorities was not in accordance with the law, did not pursue any legitimate aim and was not necessary in a democratic society. The applicants further complain under Articles 10 and 11 read together with Article 13 of the Convention that they did not have an effective remedy against the alleged violation of their freedom of expression and assembly as they had not had at their disposal any procedure which would have allowed them to obtain a final court decision prior to the date of the planned demonstrations. They also refer to the authorities’ failure to investigate the criminal complaint lodged by one of the applicants against persons who, prior to the planned demonstration, called for violence and incited others to   commit criminal offences against the participants. Fear for her life eventually forced one of the applicants to abstain from participating in the march. The applicants also complain, invoking Articles 10 and 11 read together with Article 14 of the Convention, that they were treated in a discriminatory manner and that the real aim of the restrictions on holding demonstrations in the city centre was to prevent LGBT-activists from organising their march. They submit, inter alia , that the head of the Kyiv City Administration had informed the public prior to the event complained of that they would not let the LGBT march happen in the city centre because of the homosexual orientation of the organisers. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was there an interference with the applicants’ rights under Articles   10 and 11 of the Convention given the restrictions imposed by the domestic courts on holding manifestations at the location and on the date chosen by the applicants?   If so, was that interference prescribed by law? Did it pursue any legitimate aim and was it necessary in a democratic society? Did the domestic courts perform a balancing exercise to assess the proportionality of the interference to the aims sought to be achieved?   2.     Was there a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention as alleged by the applicants?   3.     Did the applicants suffer discrimination in the enjoyment of their freedom of expression and assembly contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Articles 10 and 11?   APPENDIX     No. Applicant’s Name Birth year Nationality Place of residence 1 Oleksandra Igorivna SVERDLOVA 1989 Ukrainian Kyiv 2 Olena Olegivna SHEVCHENKO 1982 Ukrainian Kyiv