CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 29 novembre 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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Published on 18 December 2023   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 43694/19 P.Y.K. against Ukraine lodged on 14 August 2019 communicated on 29 November 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns an alleged breach of the applicant’s right to respect for private life on account of the purportedly flawed analysis by the domestic courts of his allegations that publication in the media of his personal data had been neither lawful nor necessary. The applicant refers to Article 8 of the Convention. In December 2014 the applicant was convicted under Article   259 of the Criminal Code [1] for having called by telephone, on 20 September 2014, the local city police and military enlistment office alerting them falsely that mines had been planted in their buildings. He was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment suspended on probation. On 25 September 2014, before the applicant was charged with that offence, a local newspaper published a news item concerning the false alerts, which was reprinted by a local internet portal four days later. The publications indicated, in particular, that “ it had been established that the false alerts had been made by a forty-three-year-old resident of Chernihiv, [full applicant’s first and last names provided] .” They also stated that the calls had been made from the caller’s home telephone line and that the police officers had found a man under alcohol intoxication in the caller’s flat. The man had acknowledged that it had been him who had made the calls and had “mumbled something indistinctly” instead of providing a coherent explanation for his actions. The news items also indicated that criminal investigation had been opened and that the caller was facing up to six years’ term of imprisonment. On various dates the applicant lodged civil claims against the newspaper and the portal alleging, essentially, that unsolicited disclosure of his personal details, which made him sufficiently identifiable, had not been justified in the context of the publications and had breached his rights to privacy and data protection. National courts dismissed the applicant’s complaints having found, essentially, that the applicant had failed to substantiate that the use of the published personal details had been unlawful or breached his protected rights (final decisions taken by the Supreme Court on 28   January 2019 [2] and 25 August   2020 respectively). QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his private life, contrary to Article   8 of the Convention, regard being had to the dismissal, by the national courts, of his complaints concerning the use of his personal data in media publications? The parties are invited to comment, in particular, whether a fair balance was struck between the applicant’s right to respect for his private life within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention and the defendants’ right to freedom of expression within the meaning of Article 10 of the Convention. [1]     Article 259 of the Criminal Code entails liability for “a knowingly false notification of a threat to the security of citizens [and/or] destruction or damage to property”. [2] This decision taken in the applicant’s absence was sent to him by post on 21 February 2019.