CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 1 février 2021

.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 } Communicated on 1 February 2021 Published on 22 February 2021   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 29319/13 Oleksiy Oleksiyovych ZHOKH against Ukraine lodged on 16 April 2013 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns an alleged denial by the State authorities of access to information of public interest in reply to the request from the applicant and following a court judgment ordering to provide the applicant with the information requested. By a judgment of 15 May 2015 the Kyiv Administrative Court of Appeal granted the applicant’s claims against the Obukhiv Department of the State Agency for Land Resources (the Department), finding that its refusal to provide the applicant with the information (in the schematic form) about the land plots within the village of Neshcheriv, which belonged to the State or municipal property and were not allocated to private individuals, was unlawful. The court ordered the respondent to provide the information requested as it was of public nature and the respondent did not advance any reasonable arguments as to why it could not be provided to the applicant. On 12 October 2012 the enforcement proceedings were initiated. In their framework the Department was twice fined for failure to enforce the judgment voluntarily. Eventually, on 28   December   2012 the enforcement proceedings were terminated without actual enforcement due to the “impossibility to enforce the judgment without the debtor’s participation”. On the same day a submission on possible criminal offence of failure to enforce a court judgment by the Department was sent to the police. In March 2013 a relevant criminal case was opened, which, according to the applicant, is still pending. Before the Court the applicant complained under Article   10 of the Convention as regards the interference with his freedom of expression, in particular his right to receive and impart information. Under Article 6 of the Convention he also complained as regards the non-enforcement of the domestic court’s judgment adopted in his favour. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression, in particular his right to receive and 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?   2.     Has there been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention as regards the non-enforcement of the domestic court’s judgment adopted in the applicant’s favour?