CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 avril 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 } Published on 26 April 2021   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 54353/20 Pavlo Vyacheslavovych VOVK against Ukraine lodged on 13 January 2021 communicated on 8 April 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant is judge and President of the Kyiv Circuit Administrative Court. He alleges that in his capacity of President of that court, since 2016 he has had disagreements, and most recently open confrontations, with the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (hereinafter: “NABU”). Following several NABU investigations apparently implicating the applicant, on 2 August 2019 he was served with a written notification of suspicion alleging that he had committed various offences against the proper administration and functioning of the judiciary. On 17 July 2020 a new notification of suspicion was prepared concerning similar offences, including the participation in acts aimed at the usurpation of state power and the taking of illegal benefits. The application concerns alleged virulent public campaign orchestrated by the NABU concerning the pending criminal proceedings against the applicant. In particular, the applicant complains that in July 2019 the NABU published on its website information about the pending criminal proceedings against him, including recordings of his conversations obtained as a result of covert surveillance. This was accompanied by the comments of a reporter explaining the circumstances of the incriminated offences in a way that suggested that the NABU charges rested on proven facts. Another similar prejudicial publication appeared in July 2020 following the preparation of the second notification of suspicion against the applicant (see above). In respect of these publications, the applicant sought to institute criminal proceedings against those concerned. However, he alleges that he has no effective remedy in that respect. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention that the impugned NABU publications breached his presumption of innocence suggesting that the was guilty of the charges in question. He further alleges that the publications in question breached his right to respect for his private life under Article 8 of the Convention in that they amounted to an unlawful and unjustified attack on his reputation. The applicant also complains that he does not have effective remedy for his above complaints, as required by Article 13 of the Convention. Lastly, the applicant invokes Article 18 of the Convention complaining that the aim of the impugned publications was not to inform the public, but that these publications had an ulterior purpose of damaging his reputation, exerting pressure on the judiciary and creating an image of the NABU’s effectiveness. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have at his disposal effective remedies for his specific complaints, as required by Article 13 of the Convention, and, if so, did he properly exhaust those remedies, as required by Article   35 §   1 of the Convention?   2.     Has the applicants complied with the six-month time-limit laid down in Article   35 §   1 of the Convention as regards the specific matters complained of?   3.     Did Article 6 § 2 apply to the circumstances of the case? If so, was the presumption of innocence respected in the present case as regards the impugned NABU publications concerning the criminal proceedings against the applicant?   4.     Have the NABU publications breached the applicant’s right to respect for his private life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention?   5.     Did the impugned publications aim to achieve an ulterior purpose, contrary to Article 18, taken in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention, as alleged by the applicant?   6.     In the circumstances of the present case, does Article 18 apply in conjunction with Article 6 § 2 of the Convention (see Ilgar Mammadov v.   Azerbaijan (infringement proceedings) [GC], no. 15172/13, § 261, 29   May 2019)? If so, has there been a breach of Article 18 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 6 § 2 of the Convention as regards the impugned publications concerning the applicant’s case?