CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 août 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 } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .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 } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } Published on 16 September 2024   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 79083/17 Artur Volodymyrovych BOYAROV against Ukraine and 3 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 28 August 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES The applications concern the alleged impossibility for the applicants to access certain Russian websites following the respective decision of the Ukrainian authorities. On 15 May 2017 the President of Ukraine signed a Decree implementing a decision of the National Defence Council on imposition of personal sanctions in respect, in particular, of a number of Russian internet services, including news portals, mailing services and social media. Those sanctions, apart from economic measures, also included the termination of provision of telecommunication services to the entities concerned. In practice, this supposed that the Ukrainian Internet services providers had to take measures to limit access to the respective Russian Internet services from Ukraine. Three applicants challenged the presidential Decree before the Higher Administrative Court (“the HACU”) as a court of first instance. They argued that they were active users of various Russian websites, for example, the mailing service mail.ru and the social medias VKontakte and Odnoklassniki , where they communicated with friends and relatives, read news, shared and received information. Because of the abovementioned sanctions against those services the applicants were allegedly no longer able to continue accessing the Russian websites in question. The applicants’ complaints were rejected by the courts essentially as the Decree was directed at specific legal entities and entailed legal consequences only for those entities; it had not created any rights or obligations for the applicants; therefore, they could not challenge it. In applications nos. 52246/18 and 19640/19 the final judgments were adopted by the Supreme Court of Ukraine on 7 May 2018 and 20 December 2018 respectively. The applicant in the application no. 79083/17 did not submit an appeal to the Supreme Court. The applicant in the application no. 80554/17 did not apply to the courts to challenge the Decree considering that the existing domestic practice evidenced that such an appeal was ineffective. In particular, he relied on an unfavourable HACU judgment of 14 June 2017 in an analogous case. The applicants complained that the impossibility for them to access Russian websites, allegedly resulting from the sanctions imposed on the Russian entities, violated Article 10 of the Convention. The applicants in applications nos. 80554/17 and 19640/19 also invoked their right to respect for their private life under Article 8 of the Convention. The applicants in applications nos. 80554/17 and 52246/18 further raised complaints under Article 6 and/or 13 concerning alleged lack of access to court or effective remedy on account of the domestic courts not having examined their complaints on the merits. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ freedom of expression, in particular their right to receive and impart information and ideas, within the meaning of Article   10 §   1 of the Convention, on account of the alleged impossibility to access Russian websites resulting from the sanctions imposed on the respective Russian Internet services? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article   10 §   2? The Government is invited to provide detailed information on the legal procedure used and concrete actions undertaken in implementation of the sanctions at issue, as well as the reasons for the need to implement such sanctions.   2.     Assuming the applicability of Article 13 of the Convention, did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their Convention complaints, in particular in view of the domestic courts’ reasoning advanced to reject their claims?   3.     Did the proceedings that some of the applicants tried to initiate concern their civil “rights” within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention? If so, did the applicants have access to a court for the determination of their civil rights, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention, in particular in view of the domestic courts’ reasoning advanced to reject their claims?     QUESTION TO THE PARTIES AS TO APPLICATIONS NOS. 80554/17 AND 19640/19   Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their private life, within the meaning of Article   8 §   1 of the Convention, on account of the alleged impossibility to access the sanctioned Russian websites? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article   8 §   2?   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES AS TO APPLICATIONS NOS. 79083/17 AND 80554/17   Have the applicants exhausted domestic remedies, as required by Article   35 § 1 of the Convention, in respect of their complaints concerning the impossibility to access Russian websites?       APPENDIX No. Application no. Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality 1. 79083/17 Artur Volodymyrovych BOYAROV 1988 Talne, Cherkasy region Belarusian 2. 80554/17 Yuriy Mykolayovych BORZYKH 1962 Kyiv Ukrainian 3. 52246/18 Oleksiy Andriyovych UZERCHUK 1986 Kyiv Ukrainian 4. 19640/19 Roman Borysovych LYKHACHOV 1984 Dergachi, Kharkiv region Ukrainian