CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 26 mai 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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 } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; 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 } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s2637CC02 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s25F5CC02 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 16 June 2025   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 18538/18 Stanislav Oleksandrovych ANDRIYANENKO against Ukraine and 2 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 26 May 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES The applications concern restrictions on the applicants’ freedom of movement, either imposed due to their failure to pay debts to private individuals (applications nos. 18538/18 and 40455/18) or resulting from the enforcement of an invalidated court decision due to a failure to duly transmit information between State authorities (application no. 55307/18). The relevant details are provided in the attached table. The applicants allege a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 on account of restrictions on their freedom of movement. The applicant in application no.   55307/18 also invokes Article 13 of the Convention, claiming that he had no effective domestic remedy in this respect.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES IN ALL APPLICATIONS 1.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s freedom of movement, contrary to Article   2 of Protocol No.   4? ADDITIONAL QUESTION TO THE PARTIES IN APPLICATION NO. 55307/18 2.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?     APPENDIX No. Application no. Case name Introduction date Applicant’s name Year of birth Place of residence Nationality Representative’s name Location Summary of the relevant factual circumstances 1. 18538/18 Andriyanenko v.   Ukraine 30/03/2018 Stanislav Oleksandrovych ANDRIYANENKO 1967 Oleksandriya Ukrainian   On 23 November 2017, the Kirovohrad Regional Court of Appeal made a final decision to uphold the State Bailiffs’ Service’s application for an order banning the applicant from leaving Ukraine due to the applicant’s alleged evasion of debt repayment, until the debt, which had been established by a court decision in 2015, had been paid in full.   2. 40455/18 Aslanova v.   Ukraine 21/08/2018 Ganna Petrivna ASLANOVA 1975 Kyiv Ukrainian Kateryna Oleksandrivna CHUYEVA Odesa On 27 February 2018, the Kyiv Court of Appeal made a final decision to uphold the State Bailiffs’ Service’s application for an order banning the applicant from leaving Ukraine due to the applicant’s alleged evasion of debt repayment, until the debt, which had been established by a court decision in 2014, had been paid in full.   3. 55307/18 Kravchenko v.   Ukraine 05/11/2018 Oleksandr Mykhaylovych KRAVCHENKO 1989 Pology Ukrainian Pavlo Mykolayovych SOBYNA Okhtyrka On 20 September 2017 the Zhovtnevyi District Court of Dnipropetrovsk authorised the applicant’s apprehension on suspicion of a military service offence, and he was placed on the “wanted list”. On 17 October 2017, the applicant voluntarily appeared before the investigating judge, who refused to detain him, and his “wanted list” status was cancelled the same day.   On 11 February 2018 the applicant was arrested by the State Border Guard Service while attempting to leave Ukraine because the border control system triggered an alert based on the court decision of 20   September 2017. He was released the next day following the intervention of his lawyer.   On 23 July 2018 the Lviv Regional Administrative Court found that the Military Prosecutor’s Office had acted unlawfully by failing to timely inform the State Border Guard Service about the cancellation of the applicant’s “wanted” status.