CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 26 mai 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 } .sEA75BD01 { width:106.24%; border-collapse:collapse } .sE6BE634D { width:7.1%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; 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 } .s390CB55C { width:30.82%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sD329AE83 { width:16.28%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sE5627FA5 { width:22.9%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s393A4D88 { width:7.1%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sD256A34E { width:30.82%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sD8A375CB { width:16.28%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s9B7A7BB6 { width:22.9%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 14 June 2021   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 17503/19 Mykhaylo Sergiyovych TKACH and Kyrylo Oleksandrovych LAZAREVYCH against Ukraine lodged on 22 March 2019 communicated on 26 May 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicants’ complaint about the alleged interference of state agents with their journalistic activities and the allegedly ineffective investigation into this interference. The applicants are journalists of Radio Free Europe. In October 2015 they were working on preparation of a television program aimed at revealing corruption in the Security Service of Ukraine (SSU). In the framework of this work, on 2 October 2015 they were filming cars in which employees of the SSU arrived to the SSU department in Kyiv. The SSU officers approached the applicants, asked them not to film, broke their camera and by force took them inside the premises of the SSU department. The officers also seized from the applicants the memory card which contained the footage already filmed near the SSU department. Within a short time the applicants were released and the memory card was returned to them on an unspecified date. On 5 October 2015 the applicants lodged a criminal complaint to the police seeking investigation into the actions of the SSU officers which, according to the applicants, constituted a crime under Article 175 of the Criminal Code. On 12 October 2015 the Military Prosecutor’s Office instituted criminal proceedings against the SSU’s officers. The criminal proceedings were terminated 4 times and then reopened following the appeals which the applicants lodged with the courts. The investigation is still pending. The applicants submit that further prosecution of the SSU officers is time-barred. The applicants complain under Article 10 of the Convention that State agents unlawfully interfered with their professional activities and that there has not been an effective investigation in that regard. They also complain under Article 13 that they had no remedy against the ineffective investigation. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     In so far as the events on 2 October 2015 are concerned, 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?   2.     Did the Government discharge its positive obligation under Article 10 of the Convention to take the necessary measures to investigate the events of 2 October 2015 (see Özgür Gündem v. Turkey no.   23144/93, § 43, ECHR   2000 ‑ III; Dink v. Turkey, nos. 2668/07 and 4 others, § 137, 14   September 2010)?   3.     Did the applicants have an effective remedy against the allegedly ineffective investigation in their case as required by Article 13 of the Convention?   Appendix   No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality Place of residence 1. Mykhaylo Sergiyovych TKACH 1988 Ukrainian Kyiv 2. Kyrylo Oleksandrovych LAZAREVYCH 1982 Ukrainian Kyiv