CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 mars 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 } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sFD906E12 { width:117.9%; border-collapse:collapse } .sF23A4D67 { width:6.38%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s5F7C7946 { width:33.12%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s4A17CCCD { width:22.44%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sC670628D { width:19.02%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s4AAA53A4 { width:19.04%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sBD7978B9 { width:6.38%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sE58FF9D5 { margin-left:15.01pt; padding-left:2.84pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt } .s8E07AB9C { width:33.12%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt } .sA24709B5 { width:22.44%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt } .sE190C25B { width:19.02%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt } .sCFB38CFD { width:19.04%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt } Communicated on 9 March 2021 Published on 29 March 2021   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 51098/13 Volodymyr Ivanovych VYSOTSKYY and Nadiya Sergiyivna BARANSKA against Ukraine lodged on 5 August 2013 communicated on 9 March 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns a court decision prohibiting the applicants to organise the extraordinary all-Ukrainian conference of advocates, one of the self-governance bodies of the Ukrainian bar association. On 28 November 2012 an extraordinary meeting of the Council of Advocates of Ukraine chaired by Mr Vysotskyy took place. At the meeting it was decided to convene and hold an extraordinary all-Ukrainian conference of advocates on 2 February 2013 in Odessa. The organisation committee responsible for preparing the conference was established and both applicants became members. At an extraordinary meeting held on 22 January 2013 the Council of Advocates chaired by Mr Vysotskyy decided to move the date of the extraordinary all-Ukrainian conference of advocates to 9   February 2013 and prepared the agenda for the meeting. On 5 February 2013 an advocate from Kyiv, Mr Lukyanenko, instituted proceedings before the Kyiv District Administrative Court against the Council of Advocates of Kyiv, Council of Advocates of Ukraine and the organisation committee of the extraordinary all ‑ Ukrainian conference of advocates to be held in Odessa on 9 February 2013. He stated that the conference of advocates of Kyiv had not been convened according to the law and could not elect the delegates to the extraordinary all-Ukrainian conference. On 6 February 2013 the court applied an interim measure in the framework of the proceedings instituted by Mr Lukyanenko and prohibited the holding of the extraordinary all-Ukrainian conference in Odessa on 9   February 2013. On 9 February 2013 the participants of the all-Ukrainian extraordinary conference organised by the applicants, including the applicants themselves, arrived in Odessa and learned about the decision of 6 February 2013. On the same day they decided to move the venue of the extraordinary all ‑ Ukrainian conference from Odessa to Zatoka Village, because the decision of 6   February 2013 only prohibited the organisation of the conference in Odessa. The extraordinary all-Ukrainian conference took place in Zatoka on the same day and adopted a number of decisions. On an unspecified date Mr Vysotskyy appealed against the interim measure imposed on 6 February 2013. On 20 June 2013 his appeal was rejected by the Kyiv Administrative Court of Appeal. On 3 July 2013 the Higher Administrative Court rejected his appeal in cassation. The applicants complain under Article 11 of the Convention that by the interim measure imposed by the decision of 6 February 2013 they were prohibited from organising the extraordinary all-Ukrainian conference of advocates.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to freedom of peaceful assembly, within the meaning of Article 11 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 11 § 2 of the Convention (see Bączkowski and Others v. Poland , no.   1543/06, 3 May 2007, Alekseyev v. Russia , nos. 4916/07 and 2 others, 21   October 2010, Körtvélyessy v. Hungary , no. 7871/10, 5 April 2016, Chumak v. Ukraine , no. 44529/09, 6 March 2018)   ?   APPENDIX   No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality Place of residence   Volodymyr Ivanovych VYSOTSKYY 1960 Ukrainian Kyiv   Nadiya Sergiyivna BARANSKA 1958 Ukrainian Bogdashiv