CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 30 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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } Published on 18 May 2026   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 38560/21 Andriy KHYMCHUK against Ukraine lodged on 23 July 2021 communicated on 30 April 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the allegedly unjustified refusal to provide the applicant with information of importance for the public. The applicant was hired by a non-governmental organisation working in the field of rule of law to research into the previously reported question of misuse of the automated system of distribution of cases in courts (particularly by way of misuse of specialisation of judges) and prepare an article on that matter. In preparation for that task, the applicant requested the Kyiv City Circuit Administrative Court ( Окружний адміністративний суд м. Києва ) to inform him whether specialisation was introduced in that court and to provide him with copies of the minutes of the assembly of judges at which that question was decided. In reply, by a letter dated 12 august 2020, the applicant was informed that no specialisation was introduced in the mentioned court and that the copies requested could not be provided being “internal information”. The applicant’s appeal against that refusal was rejected by the Kyiv Region Circuit Administrative Court ( Київський окружний адміністративний суд ) and the Sixth Administrative Court of Appeal on 16   November 2020 and 18 February 2021 respectively. The courts found that (i)   the assembly of judges being entitled to decide on the issue of specialisation in courts was, nevertheless, not a “body of power” in the meaning of the Law on Access to Public Information, and (ii) the minutes of the assemblies’ meeting were included in the list of “internal information” adopted by the Kyiv City Circuit Administrative Court and were thus restricted in access. The courts also examined the applicant’s persistent reference to earlier court judgments in cases involving assemblies of judges which acknowledged their status as controllers of public information (dating to 2020), but did not accept that argument; in ruling so they relied on a Supreme Court’s judgment of 2019. The applicant’s appeal to the Supreme Court to have his case reviewed in the light of possible divergent case law was rejected on 31 March 2021. The applicant was eventually able to prepare his article which was published on 6 August 2020. In the section related to the specialisation of judges he mentioned another court as an example of its misuse. The applicant complains under Article 10 of the Convention about the unjustified restriction of his right of access to public information.       QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression, in particular his right of access to information, within the meaning of Article   10 § 1 of the Convention (see Magyar Helsinki Bizottság v. Hungary [GC], no. 18030/11, §§ 149-70, 8 November 2016)? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 10 § 2?