CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 mars 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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s1DE04B9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 25 March 2024   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 21217/17 Oleksiy Volodymyrovych RADCHENKO against Ukraine lodged on 10 March 2017 communicated on 5 March 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the prolonged non-enforcement of a court judgment granting the applicant access to certain public information. By the final judgment of the Kyiv Circuit Administrative Court of 17   September 2015, the applicant’s complaints as to the non-disclosure by the Ministry of Ecology of Ukraine of information about the state of environmental pollution, including air pollution, in certain districts of the Kyiv region and the measures undertaken to combat it, were granted. The court ordered to provide the applicant with the information requested. The applicant initiated enforcement proceedings but they proved to be ineffective, and the judgment remains unenforced. The applicant complains under Articles 10 and 13 as to the impossibility to obtain enforcement of the final judgment of the Kyiv Circuit Administrative Court of 17 September 2015 delivered in his favour which violates his right to receive and impart information and the lack of effective remedies in that respect.         QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression, in particular his 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? ( Magyar Helsinki Bizottság v. Hungary [GC], no. 18030/11, 8 November 2016 and Zhokh v.   Ukraine (Committee), no. 29319/13, 28 September 2023).   2.     Has there been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention as regards the non-enforcement of the domestic court’s judgment adopted in the applicant’s favour?