CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 30 septembre 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 } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s346F104F { width:111.9%; border-collapse:collapse } .s2EF5680A { width:12.18%; 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 } .sF760864F { width:20.32%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sC1A20A0D { width:14.06%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s1D180F61 { width:24.14%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s7BE22F11 { width:29.3%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s644BCF83 { width:12.18%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s45217B2F { width:20.32%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s32BAB4E { width:14.06%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4043161D { width:24.14%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6D7AFD8E { width:29.3%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 20 October 2025   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 21109/20 Ganna Viktorivna TSYBA and Others against Ukraine lodged on 4 May 2020 communicated on 30 September 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the dissolution of the applicants’ demonstration and various issues stemming from it (Articles 3, 10 and 11 of the Convention). On 11 October 2019 the applicants held a demonstration in front of the embassy of Türkiye in Kyiv protesting against Türkiye’s military operations in Syria. Agents of the National Guard present at the scene asked the applicants to dissolve the demonstration stating that it was unlawful. A group of persons emerged from the embassy, approached the applicants and urged them to leave. The group was trying to attack the applicants and take away their posters. One of the attackers injured the first applicant’s face while trying to reach for her poster. A person from the group took a road cone and started swinging it in the direction of the applicants. After that, the group re-entered the embassy. The National Guard agents were observing the clashes without intervening. The applicants called the police who arrived shortly afterwards and explained that they arrived following a call concerning an unlawful demonstration and not upon the applicants’ call. More police reinforcements arrived later on. Ambulance arrived and provided medical assistance to the first applicant. The applicants initiated criminal investigation into the infliction of bodily injuries on the first applicant, the actions of the group which had attacked them, and the action of the National Guard agents who had failed to intervene. The investigation remains pending. The first applicant complains, under Article 3 of the Convention, that the police had not prevented private individuals from injuring her and that the investigation into the infliction of bodily injuries has been ineffective. The applicants complain, invoking Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention, that they could not hold the demonstration for its full intended duration because the authorities had not prevented the private individuals from attacking them and had not carried out an effective investigation into the attack.       QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a breach of Article 3 of the Convention in the present case? In particular, was the State responsible for not preventing the private persons from inflicting an injury on the first applicant (see, mutatis mutandis , Identoba and Others v. Georgia , no. 73235/12, § 72, 12 May 2015)? Having regard to procedural protection from inhuman or degrading treatment (see Identoba and Others v. Georgia , cited above, § 81; and Chernega and Others v. Ukraine , no. 74768/10, § 169, 18 June 2019), was the investigation by the domestic authorities into the injury inflicted on the first applicant in breach of Article 3 of the Convention? 2.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ freedom of peaceful assembly, within the meaning of Article   11 §   1 of the Convention?     If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article   11 § 2? 3.     Have the authorities complied with their duty to take appropriate measures to ensure peaceful conduct of the applicants’ demonstration, as required by Article 11 of the Convention (see the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and Ivanov v. Bulgaria , no. 44079/98, §   115, 20 October 2005; Oya Ataman v. Turkey , no. 74552/01, §   35, ECHR 2006-XIII)? Have the authorities complied with their obligation to take effective investigative measures concerning the interference with freedom of assembly of the applicants by acts of private individuals (see, mutatis mutandis , Ouranio Toxo and Others v. Greece , no. 74989/01, § 43, ECHR 2005-X (extracts) and Özgür Gündem v. Turkey , no. 23144/93, § 45, ECHR 2000-III)?       APPENDIX List of applicants   No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality Place of residence 1. Ganna Viktorivna TSYBA 1988 Ukrainian Kyiv 2. Nataliya Andriyivna LUNYO 1997 Ukrainian Khmelnytskyy 3. Denys Mykhaylovych PILASH 1994 Ukrainian Uzhgorod