CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 27 février 2025

.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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } Published on 17 March 2025   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 31707/18 Dmytro Vyacheslavovych BONDAR against Ukraine lodged on 28 June 2018 communicated on 27 February 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the prohibition for the applicant, a journalist, to attend and conduct a video recording of the assembly of judges of a local court. In March 2015 the applicant, following a public invitation to the press to attend the assembly of judges of the Rivne Regional Commercial Court during which a head of the abovementioned court had to be elected, arrived at the premises of the court. The applicant was allowed to attend on condition that he would not use video recording, only audio recording and photographing. He refused to comply, arguing that that violated his rights as of a journalist. He was eventually not allowed to attend at all. The applicant challenged the above refusal before an administrative court, but his claim was refused by the courts of three levels of jurisdiction with the final judgment adopted by the Supreme Court on 7 February 2018. The applicant complained under Article 10 of the Convention that he was denied access to publicly important information. 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?   2.     If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article   10 §   2?