CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 février 2026

.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 23 February 2026   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 36666/19 Viktor Mykolayovych SLOBODYANYUK against Ukraine lodged on 21 June 2019 communicated on 5 February 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns an alleged breach of   the principle of equality of arms in civil defamation proceedings and the alleged failure of a domestic court to protect the applicant’s right to reputation. In November 2016 the applicant, at the time Head of the Kozyatyn District Council, instituted civil defamation proceedings against a local media outlet and the owner of its website in connection with a series of publications issued in 2015 in both its printed newspaper and online. According to the applicant, those publications alleged, inter alia , that he suffered from epilepsy and psychopathy, and accused him of a number of reprehensible acts, including tax evasion. Considering that the impugned publications damaged his reputation, the applicant requested domestic courts to declare them defamatory and to award him compensation for non-pecuniary damage. The first-instance court and the court of appeal ruled in the applicant’s favour, found the impugned publications defamatory and awarded him compensation. However, on 3 April 2019, upon appeals on points of law by the defendants, the Supreme Court overturned their rulings and dismissed the applicant’s claim, relying mainly on the broader margin of criticism to which the applicant, as a public official, was subject. The applicant complains that he was denied a fair hearing because he was not notified of the proceedings before the Supreme Court and was not served with copies of the appeals on points of law submitted by the defendants. He further complains that by rejecting his defamation claim, the Supreme Court failed to protect his right to reputation. The applicant relies on Articles   6   §   1, 8 and 10 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the principle of equality of arms respected in the proceedings before the Supreme Court in the applicant’s case (see   Lazarenko and Others v. Ukraine , nos. 70329/12 and 5 others, §§ 36 ‑ 37, 27 June 2017;   Tverdokhlebova v.   Ukraine , no.   15830/16, §   23, 16   January 2025; and, for illustrative purposes, compare with Voytsekhovskyy v. Ukraine (dec.) [Committee], no. 41881/18, §§   9-12, 26   January 2023)?   The parties are requested to submit copies of all documents related to the notification of the applicant regarding the proceedings before the Supreme Court.   2.     Is Article 8 of the Convention applicable in the present case (see, for example, Axel Springer AG   v.   Germany   [GC], no.   39954/08, §   83, 7   February 2012)? In the affirmative, has the respondent State complied with its positive obligation to protect the applicant’s right to respect for his reputation under Article   8 of the Convention (see Pfeifer v.   Austria , no.   12556/03, §§ 53-55, 15 November 2007; Egill Einarsson v.   Iceland , no.   24703/15, §§ 32-40, 7 November 2017; Baena Salamanca v.   Spain , no.   23236/22, §§ 115-21, 6 November 2025)?