CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 mars 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 7 April 2026   FIFTH SECTION Applications nos. 36557/21 and 60835/21 Vyacheslav Yuriyovych PLESKACH against Ukraine lodged on 30 June 2021 and 1 December 2021 respectively communicated on 17 March 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the allegedly unjustified refusal to grant the applicant access to public information and his being fined for statements made in the context of court proceedings in his case. The applicant is a lawyer and runs two Facebook pages about legal practice. In November 2019 he submitted a request to the High Council of Justice (“the HCJ”) asking for a record of its last hearing in the disciplinary proceedings as to a certain judge S. related to bribery, two earlier HCJ hearings in that case having been broadcast live on its website. The HCJ refused that request referring to its internal rules. The applicant appealed to the Supreme Court against that refusal relying on the Law on Access to Public Information and arguing that the above case was of high interest for the society and that he wished to report on it. On 11 March 2020 his claim was allowed as the HCJ could not rely on its rules to disregard the provisions of a law regulating matters related to access to public information. The Supreme Court ordered the HCJ to re-examine the applicant’s request and provide him with the information sought. The judgment was subject to immediate execution, but it appears that no actions were undertaken by the HCJ to comply with it. On 4 February 2021 the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court reversed that judgment. It reasoned that (i) the information request had not contained a clear purpose; (ii) the applicant had not showed his journalist or other “watchdog” status, and (iii) the refusal pursued the legitimate aim, namely, to preclude the disclosure of the criminal investigation materials and judge S.’s personal information. It appears that the Supreme Court published, in the State Register of Court Decisions, two different versions of the judgment of 4 February 2021. The applicant requested the Supreme Court to provide a copy of the initially published judgment but was refused and informed that it had been published by mistake. The applicant sought to challenge that refusal and requested the Supreme Court to explain why the text of the judgment was changed. He also sought to recuse the judge rapporteur in the case, which was still pending regarding some remaining procedural matters, stating that that judge was “directly liable for that shameful and deplorable [event]” and was intentionally preventing him from obtaining the document sought to cover up the unlawful modifications and avoid possible disciplinary proceedings. The applicant also mentioned that failure to provide the documents could be challenged before the Court as violation of Article 34 of the Convention. On 27 October 2021 the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court left the applicant’s complaints and requests without consideration, found that he had abused his procedural rights (Article 45 of the Code of Administrative Procedure) and fined him 681 Ukrainian hryvnias (approximately 35 euros at the time of events). The Grand Chamber referred to the restrictions applicable to lawyers participating in court proceedings, as well as to their duty to facilitate the examination of the case and respect the court and, having analysed the applicant’s statements, concluded that they were unfounded and constituted a personal attack on the judge. That decision was final and not subject to appeal. Two judges submitted dissenting opinions considering that the applicant had not overstepped the limits of acceptable criticism. As regards the main proceedings which ended on 4 February 2021, the applicant complains under Article   10 of the Convention about the allegedly unlawful and disproportionate denial of access to public information. He also relies on Article 6 of the Convention in respect of the non-enforcement of the Supreme Court’s judgment of 11 March 2020 during the period before its reversal. He also complains, in respect of the fine imposed on him on 27   October 2021 for the statements made about the judge rapporteur, that his right to express opinions under Article 10 has been breached. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression, in particular his right to access public information allegedly held by the HCJ (including on account of its failure to comply with the judgment of the Supreme Court of 11 March 2020 during the period before it was reversed), within the meaning of Article   10 §   1 of the Convention (see, Magyar Helsinki Bizottság v. Hungary [GC], no. 18030/11, 8 November 2016)? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article   10 §   2?   2.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression contrary to Article 10 of the Convention on account of the fine imposed on him on 27 October 2021 for the statements made in the context of court proceedings (see, Morice v. France [GC], no. 29369/10, ECHR 2015; Radobuljac v. Croatia , no. 51000/11, 28 June 2016, and Mikhaylova v.   Ukraine , no. 10644/08, 6 March 2018)?