CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 21 avril 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 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 11 May 2026   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 30977/24 Roman Borysovych LYKHACHOV against Ukraine lodged on 11 October 2024 communicated on 21 April 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant was a journalist and a human rights activist. He conducted an investigation into allegedly illegal activities of a certain O. and published a video in that respect. In August 2019 the applicant found an axe stuck in his door and a note attached to it saying “if you don’t stop fooling around, next axe will end up being stuck in your head without a prior warning”. Still in August 2019 unknown persons put an empty coffin with the applicant’s name on it near his office. Criminal investigation into the events remains pending, but no suspects have been identified. The applicant asked the police to ensure his protection, and so protective measures were introduced one month after the threats. Invoking Article 2 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the investigation into the threats has been ineffective and that the police introduced the protective measures with a delay. He complains under Article   10 of the Convention that the threats were aimed at intimidating him and pressuring him to stop his activities. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life (see of Salman v.   Turkey [GC], § 104, no.   21986/93, ECHR 2000-VII), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article   2 of the Convention? Has the State discharged of its positive obligation to take preventive operational measures to protect an individual whose life is at risk from the criminal acts of another individual?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ freedom of expression, in particular his right to receive and impart information, within the meaning of Article   10 §   1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article   10 §   2? Did the Government discharge their positive obligation under Article 10 of the Convention to take the necessary measures to investigate the threats which the applicant had received (see Özgür Gündem v. Turkey no.   23144/93, § 43, ECHR 2000 ‑ III; Dink v. Turkey, nos. 2668/07 and 4 others, § 137, 14   September 2010)?