CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 25 juin 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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } Published on 15 July 2025   FIFTH SECTION Applications nos. 49646/17 and 62215/17 O.B. against Ukraine lodged on 2 July 2017 and 8 August 2017 respectively communicated on 25 June 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES The cases concern, in essence, alleged breaches of the applicant’s right to respect for private life under Article 8 of the Convention on account of a purportedly flawed analysis by the domestic courts of her allegations that two privately owned websites had repeatedly published defamatory statements concerning her and had unlawfully and unfairly used her image, voice, and personal data in their publications. The applicant refers to three sets of civil proceedings brought by her against the aforesaid websites, with final decisions having been taken on 30   November 2016, 15   February 2017 (Higher Specialised Court in Civil and Criminal Matters) and 25   September 2019 (Supreme Court) respectively. She also complains that during the third set of proceedings the courts unfairly allowed the defendants to film and photograph her in the course of court hearings. The applicant also relies on Articles 2, 3, 6, 14 and 17 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for her private life, contrary to Article   8 of the Convention:   (a)     regard being had to the dismissal, by the national courts, of her complaints concerning the use of her personal data, images and voice, as well as dissemination of defamatory statements in the internet publications?   The parties are invited to comment, in particular, whether a fair balance was struck between the applicant’s right to respect for her private life within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention and the defendants’ right to freedom of expression within the meaning of Article 10 of the Convention;   (b)     regard being had to the domestic courts’ permission given to the defendants in the third set of the proceedings referred to by the applicant to film and photograph her in the course of the hearings?   2.     In respect of the remainder of the applicant’s complaints, do they disclose a violation of the Convention and Protocols thereto, as claimed by the applicant?