CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 31 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sD37F5C3B { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } Published on 19 April 2021   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 27017/20 GROMADSKE TELEBACHENNYA, GO against Ukraine lodged on 10 June 2020 communicated on 31 March 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant organisation’s allegation that the court decisions ordering it to retract information contained in a Twitter post constituted an unjustified interference with the applicant organisation’s freedom of expression (Article 10 of the Convention). On 4 May 2018 the applicant organisation posted a short news item on its Twitter account. In that news item the applicant organisation described the non-governmental organisation Sich S-14 ( Січ С-14 ) as a “Neo-Nazi group”. Sich S-14 instituted judicial proceedings against the applicant organisation seeking to oblige it to retract the statement that Sich S-14 was a Neo-nazi group. On 21 January 2020 by its final decision the Supreme Court found that the above statement was false and damaged the reputation of Sich S-14. The court also ordered the applicant organisation to retract this statement and to post the decision of 21 January 2020 on its Twitter account. The applicant organisation complains that the courts violated its rights under Article 10 of the Convention.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression, in particular, its right to impart information or ideas, 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 (see for example, Ukrainian Media Group v. Ukraine , no. 72713/01, 29 March 2005)?