CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 décembre 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 } Published on 23 December 2024   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 56605/21 Spartak KHACHANOV against Ukraine lodged on 16 November 2021 communicated on 4 December 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application was lodged by a visual artist who used to be a student at the National Academy of Fine Arts and Architecture (“the Academy”). In December 2018 the applicant set up an anti-war exhibition called “Parade of penises” as his end-of-semester work (a 100 meters long line of sculptures of soldiers and weaponry visualised as penises). According to the applicant, one of the professors of the Academy then called his friends from the army and they all together destroyed the exhibition. The applicant alleges that he further started receiving death threats, both online and in person (in the premises of the Academy as well as in its dormitory), from members of a far-right activist group purportedly having links to law-enforcement authorities. In January 2019 the applicant applied to the police on account of the threats. In November 2019 the relevant criminal investigation was launched. In December 2019 the criminal proceedings were terminated owing to the lack of evidence of crime. In October 2020 that decision was set aside by the investigating judge due to the failure to carry out any measures. According to the applicant, the police only took explanations from him and his witnesses. As of May 2021, the investigation was ongoing. Being afraid for his life or limb because of the threats and the police inactivity in this connection, the applicant fled Ukraine. The applicant complains under Articles 3, 8 and 10 of the Convention that the domestic authorities failed to conduct an effective investigation into threats to his life or limb, which allegedly had a chilling effect on his artistic expression and forced him to leave the country. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant make prima facie credible claims triggering the State’s procedural obligation to investigate, in the sense of Article 3 of the Convention? If so, having regard to the procedural protection from inhuman or degrading treatment (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 131, ECHR   2000-IV), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?   2.     Having regard to the procedural protection from acts of violence (see K.U. v. Finland , no. 2872/02, § 46, ECHR 2008), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 8 of the Convention?   3.     In so far as the investigation into the threats received by the applicant is concerned, did the State discharge its positive obligation under Article 10 of the Convention to take all necessary measures to investigate a conduct allegedly having a chilling effect on his artistic expression (see, among other authorities,   Khadija Ismayilova v. Azerbaijan , nos. 65286/13 and 57270/14, §§ 158-66, 10 January 2019)?