CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 février 2024

.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 } .s39E5096F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } Published on 4 March 2024   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 43348/18 Sergiy Georgiyovych AKYMOVYCH and Others against Ukraine lodged on 2 September 2018 communicated on 16 February 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns an alleged unlawful dispersion of a demonstration. The applicants invoke Articles 3, 5, 10, 11 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.1. The applicants organised a stationary demonstration (a camp) in Kyiv. On 3 March 2018 the police entered the camp and seized various equipment belonging to the first applicant. The police allegedly beat all applicants except the first one. According to the applicants’ accounts, the police placed the second, third, sixths, seventh and eighth applicants in a non-heated police van where they were kept for about four hours. At around 11 a.m. these applicants were taken to a police station where they were kept in unrecorded detention. They were released at around 4-5 p.m. on the same day. During their detention, the police seized personal belongings of the second, third, sixths, seventh and eighth applicants, and did not return them. The criminal investigation into all of the above events remains pending. All applicants, except the first one, complain, invoking Article 3 that they were beaten by the police and that the investigation into this matter was ineffective. The second, third, sixth, seventh and eighth applicants complain that they were kept in unrecorded detention and were not informed about the reasons for their detention. All applicants complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that their property was seized and not returned, and under Articles 10 and 11 about the dispersal of their demonstration. They further complain that the investigation into their complaints was not effective at the domestic level (Article 13 of the Convention). QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Have the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth applicants been subjected to ill-treatment, in breach of Article   3 of the Convention? Having regard to the procedural protection from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment (see paragraph   131 of Labita v.   Italy [GC], no.   26772/95, ECHR 2000-IV), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article   3 of the Convention? 2.     Were the second, third, sixth, seventh and eighth applicant deprived of their liberty in breach of Article   5 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, did the deprivation of liberty fall within paragraph(s) (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) of this provision? Were these applicants’ detention ordered “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law”? Were these applicants informed promptly of the reasons for their detention, as required by Article   5 §   2 of the Convention? 3.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ freedom of expression, in particular the right to impart information and ideas, 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? 4.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ freedom of peaceful assembly, within the meaning of Article   11 §   1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article   11 § 2? In particular, did the measure complained of interfere with the applicants’ freedom of assembly, rather than their right to freedom of expression? 5.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1? Have the applicants been deprived of their possessions in the public interest, and in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1? 6.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their Convention complaints, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?     APPENDIX List of applicants:   Application no. 43348/18 No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality Place of residence 1. Sergiy Georgiyovych AKYMOVYCH 1965 Ukrainian Smotrych 2. Viktor Yuriyovych DEMCHENKO 1964 Ukrainian Kherson 3. Andriy Volodymyrovych DOBROVOLSKYY 1976 Ukrainian Kyiv 4. Yuriy Anatoliyovych DYKYY 1972 Ukrainian Gulyaypole 5. Mykyta Viktorovych KASHNYTSKYY 1972 Ukrainian Poltava 6. Yevgeniy Oleksandrovych LAVRYNENKO 1971 Ukrainian Zaporizhzhya 7. Yuriy Vyacheslavovych SHEVCHENKO 1972 Ukrainian Kyiv 8. Orest Mykolayovych SLOBODYAN 1965 Ukrainian Yarmolyntsi