CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 mars 2023

.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 } .sC7FB4098 { width:113.82%; border-collapse:collapse } .sA4EE11AB { width:6.8%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s33F24D5D { width:45.76%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2F869007 { width:11.88%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sC8A98521 { width:16.92%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s7D1B163B { width:18.64%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sE20D65F2 { width:6.8%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB785AEC9 { width:45.76%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s329ED0DA { width:11.88%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sE456770D { width:16.92%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s524D85B2 { width:18.64%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 20 March 2023   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 38283/18 Taras Petrovych BOGAY and Others against Ukraine lodged on 28 July 2018 communicated on 2 March 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application mainly concerns the applicants’ complaints that their rights under Articles 5 § 1, 10 and 11 of the Convention were breached on account of police actions which disrupted their picket. Starting at around 11 a.m. on 28 January 2018 the applicants, after having notified the Lviv mayor’s office, stood in a picket near the Lviv Circus building, to protest against the use of animals in circus shows. The picket participants were associated with the organisations Екологічна платформа (Environmental Platform) and Чорний стяг (Black Banner). According to the applicants, some far right hooligans were present in the vicinity. At some point one of those activated a smoke grenade and was taken to a police station and charged with the administrative offence of unlawful use of pyrotechnic equipment. The police, for unclear reasons but apparently fearing a violent episode between the two groups, started searching some picket participants, starting with the second applicant. A knife and a metal rod were found on him. Other potentially dangerous items were found on other picket participants, such as knives, hammers, numerous metal rods and clubs. The participants, including the second applicant, alleged that those items had innocent purposes, such as supporting the slogans or use in construction work. The applicants considered that in fact the police conspired with the far ‑ right elements to harass the people participating in the picket. The police took the applicants to a police station but, according to the findings of an internal police investigation (report of 20 April 2018), no arrest records were drawn up, which constituted a disciplinary infraction on the part of the officer in charge. The applicants were released within a couple of hours, from around 3 to 4.15 p.m. Some picket participants were charged with the administrative offence of “petty hooliganism.” The applicants sought to institute criminal proceedings against the police for the offences of “unlawful interference with the right to peaceful assembly” and “abuse of power”. On 1 December 2021 the State Bureau of Investigation found that there were no indications of a criminal offence in the police officers’ actions and discontinued the proceedings. According to the most recent available information, an appeal against that decision was pending. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Were the applicants deprived of their liberty in breach of Article   5 §   1 of the Convention?   2.     Do the circumstances of the case disclose an “interference” with the rights guaranteed by Article 10 § 1 and/or Article 11 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was the interference “prescribed by law” and “necessary in a democratic society” within the meaning of Article 10 § 2?   3.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?   APPENDIX List of applicants   No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality Place of residence 1. Taras Petrovych BOGAY 1989 Ukrainian Lviv 2. Rodion Oleksiyovych BAGAYEV 1994 Ukrainian Chervonograd 3. Anastasiya Yuriyivna BREZINA 1996 Ukrainian Lviv 4. Oksana Andriyivna KHOMYAK 1995 Ukrainian Stryy 5. Oleg Vasylyovych KORDYYAKA 1996 Ukrainian Lviv 6. Viktor Volodymyrovych KOTSYUBYNSKYY 2000 Ukrainian Lviv 7. Ivanna Mykolayivna KUTSIL 1999 Ukrainian Lviv 8. Vladyslav Sergiyovych LYTVYN 1998 Ukrainian Stryy 9. Marta Andriyivna OSTROVSKA 1993 Ukrainian Stryy 10. Gerkhard Olegovych RAZUMOVSKYY 2001 Ukrainian Lviv 11. Yelyzaveta Olegivna VERESHCHAGINA 1997 Ukrainian Lviv 12. Veronika Oleksandrivna YABLONSKA 1996 Ukrainian Pidvolochysk