CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 26 novembre 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 15 December 2025   FIFTH SECTION Applications nos. 13256/19 and 37986/19 Sergiy Anatoliyovych SHTEFAN against Ukraine and Valentyna Anatoliyivna MALKEVYCH against Ukraine lodged on 8 April 2019 and 10 July 2019 respectively communicated on 26 November 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES The applications concern restrictions on the applicants’ freedom of movement. In both cases, domestic courts prohibited the applicants from leaving Ukraine following requests by the Bailiffs’ Service due to their failure to pay debts resulting from court judgments to private companies. In application no. 37986/19, the travel ban was imposed in 2014, and in application no. 13256/19 it was imposed in 2018. According to the most recent available information, the travel restrictions were lifted in application no. 37986/19 in 2023, and in application no.   13256/19 on an unspecified date following its introduction. The applicants allege a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 on account of the allegedly disproportionate restrictions on their freedom of movement, given that they did not evade in any way the debts reimbursement. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicants’ freedom to leave the territory of the respondent State, contrary to Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 (see Khlyustov v. Russia, no. 28975/05, 11 July 2013; Stetsov v. Ukraine, no.   5170/15, 11   May 2021 ; and Tokar v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 38268/15, 6 March 2025)?