CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 septembre 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 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sC01B94F2 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s270ABA62 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s7F95B77E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; font-size:11pt } .sF868D398 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:11pt } .sDFF87DD { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .s4AC9B09A { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } Published on 25 September 2023   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 20256/18 Vladyslav Ruslanovych SHEVCHUK against Ukraine and 4 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 4 September 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES The applications concern, in particular, allegations of police brutality in dispersing, on 24 October 2017, a group of individuals who assembled in the premises of the Svyatoshynskyi District Court in Kyiv. The applicants – participants of that assembly, who were arrested and taken to the police office in the course of the dispersal operation – raise the following Convention complaints: (a)     under Article 3 (all applicants) on account of the poor planning of the dispersal operation involving use of unjustified force and methods of dispersal, in particular, application of the tear gas inside unventilated premises, and the use of disproportionate force for their arrest (see appendix for details concerning injuries sustained by the applicants); (b)     under Article 3 (all applicants) on account of the allegedly ineffective investigation of the applicants’ police brutality complaints; (c)     under Article 10 (only Mr   Y.Y.   Chepelyanskyy filing application no.   20699/18) that his arrest in general and the brutal conduct of the police in its course in particular breached his right to freedom of expression as he was present on site as a journalist on a journalistic assignment; (d)     under Article 11 (all applicants except Mr   V.R.   Shevchuk filing application no.   20256/18) that the dispersal was an arbitrary and unjustified interference with the applicants’ right to peaceful assembly; and (e)     under Article 13 (all applicants) that they had no effective remedies for their Convention complaints. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES (all applications) 1.     Have the applicants been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article   3 of the Convention?   2.     Having regard to the procedural protection from inhuman or degrading treatment (see paragraph   131 of Labita v.   Italy [GC], no.   26772/95, ECHR   2000-IV), was the investigation of the applicants’ complaints concerning alleged ill-treatment by the domestic authorities in breach of Article   3 of the Convention?   Additional questions in respect of applications by Mr   Y.Y.   Chepelyanskyy (no.   20699/18); Mr   A.M.   Turenko (no.   20722/18); Mr   V.V.   Malafay (no.   21024/18); and Mr   S.V.   Zhyvodyor (no.   21063/18)   1.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to freedom of peaceful assembly, within the meaning of Article   11 §   1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference justified in terms of Article   11 § 2?   2.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaint under Article 11, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?   Additional questions in respect of application by Mr   Y.Y.   Chepelyanskyy (no.   20699/18)   1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression, in particular his right to receive and impart information as a journalist, within the meaning of Article   10 §   1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference justified in terms of Article   10 §   2?   2.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 10, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?   Additional question in respect of application by Mr   A.M.   Turenko (no.   20722/18)   Regard being had to the information from which it appears that the applicant’s whereabouts are not known and his lawyer has no contact with him, are there grounds for the Court to proceed with the examination of the case (compare Oliyevskiy v. Ukraine (dec.), no.   65117/11, §§   16-23, 14   January 2020)? APPENDIX List of applications No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Represented by Documented injuries 1. 20256/18 Shevchuk v. Ukraine 23/04/2018 Vladyslav Ruslanovych SHEVCHUK 1996 Pavlograd Ukrainian V.M.   Khekalo Closed cerebral cranial injury; right temple, shoulder and back contusions; right foot oedema 2. 20699/18 Chepelyanskyy v.   Ukraine 25/04/2018 Yevgen Yuriyovych CHEPELYANSKYY 1990 Kyiv Ukrainian A.S.   Kychenok Abrasions on wrists, neck, and chest 3. 20722/18 Turenko v. Ukraine 24/04/2018 Anton Mykhaylovych TURENKO 1991 information missing Ukrainian O.I.   Veremiyenko Chest, torso and right shoulder blade contusions 4. 21024/18 Malafay v. Ukraine 25/04/2018 Volodymyr Vasylyovych MALAFAY 1958 Kyiv Ukrainian A.S.   Kychenok No injuries except suffering from inhaling tear gas 5. 21063/18 Zhyvodyor v. Ukraine 25/04/2018 Stanislav Volodymyrovych ZHYVODYOR 1959 Kyiv Ukrainian A.S.   Kychenok Knee and rib area contusions, ear injury, facial abrasions