CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 avril 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 20 April 2026.   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 45363/20 Taras Viktorovych ZYSKO against Ukraine lodged on 2 October 2020 communicated on 2 April 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns a restriction on the applicant’s freedom of movement. In October 2017, following a request by the Bailiffs’ Service, the domestic courts prohibited the applicant from leaving Ukraine on account of his failure to repay a debt arising from a court judgment, delivered in 2016, in favour of a bank. The applicant’s appeal against the imposition of the travel ban was dismissed. In November 2019, the applicant requested that the ban be lifted. In March and June 2020, the first-instance court and the Court of Appeal, respectively, rejected that request. The decision of the Court of Appeal was not amenable to cassation review and was therefore final. According to the most recent available information, the travel restriction was lifted in March 2024 after the applicant had transferred ownership of his apartment, which had been subject to a mortgage, to the creditor bank, and the bank had requested the bailiff to return the enforcement writ without execution. According to the applicant, in view of the bailiff’s inaction in enforcing the 2016 judgment, in particular the failure to sell the apartment at public auction, the direct transfer of the apartment to the bank constituted the only means available to him to secure the lifting of the restriction. The applicant alleges a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 on account of the allegedly lengthy and disproportionate restriction on his freedom of movement, arguing that he did not in any way evade repayment of the debt and that the bailiff, for his part, failed to take effective steps to enforce the judgment. 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)?