CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 15 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s65E06E64 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { 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 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 6 April 2021   FIFTH SECTION Applications nos. 41713/13 and 29980/15 Antonina Oleksandrivna TORBICH against Ukraine and Volodymyr Anatoliyovych TORBICH against Ukraine lodged on 12 June 2013 and 8 June 2015 respectively communicated on 15 March 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern an alleged denial by the State authorities of access to information of public interest in reply to two requests from Ms   Torbich (the first applicant) and Mr Torbich (the second applicant). At the time of events the latter was an editor-in-chief of the analytical and information Internet portal “ Chetverta Vlada ” (The Fourth Estate) and the former - his deputy. Both applicants lived in the town of Rivne. In August-September 2012, during the elections to the Parliament of Ukraine, the applicants requested the Central Election Commission (the CEC) to provide them with the autobiographies and photos of all single-mandate constituency candidates registered in the Rivne Region. The requests stated that the information was needed in order to make an informed choice during the elections. In their submissions before the domestic courts as well as in their applications to the Court the applicants also noted that the above information was needed as during the elections there were many “technical candidates” who had the same, or very similar, names and this technique was intended to disperse the votes. In reply, the second applicant was provided with some information from the candidates’ autobiographies (which had already been made public) and the access to the remainder of information was refused as it was confidential and could not be disseminated without agreement from the candidates. The first applicant was refused the requested information on the same grounds. The applicants challenged those refusals before the courts, in particular, the second applicant lodged his claim on 16 October 2012. On 28 October 2012 the elections took place. The applicants’ claims were rejected by the courts: - in respect of the first applicant - by the final judgment of the Zhytomyr Administrative Court of Appeal of 17 December 2012, and - in respect of the second applicant - by the final judgment of the Higher Administrative Court of 9 December 2014. The courts essentially endorsed the reasons provided by the CEC. Before the Court the applicants complained under Article 10 of the Convention as regards the interference with their freedom of expression, in particular their right to receive and impart information. The second applicant also complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the lengthy examination of his complaints by the domestic courts undermined the possibility to remedy the alleged violation of his rights. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES AS REGARDS BOTH APPLICATIONS 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ freedom of expression, in particular their 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? QUESTION TO THE PARTIES AS REGARDS APPLICATION NO. 29980/15 Was the length of the proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article   6 §   1 of the Convention, in particular in the view of the subject matter of the case?   APPENDIX   No Application no. Lodged on Case name Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Represented by 1 41713/13 12/06/2013 Torbich v.   Ukraine   Antonina Oleksandrivna TORBICH (F) 1980 Rivne Ukrainian Lyudmyla Volodymyrivna OPRYSHKO 2 29980/15 08/06/2015 Torbich v.   Ukraine   Volodymyr Anatoliyovych TORBICH (M) 1980 Rivne Ukrainian Lyudmyla Volodymyrivna OPRYSHKO