Published on 20 March 2023
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 38283/18
Taras Petrovych BOGAY and Others
against Ukraine
lodged on 28 July 2018
communicated on 2 March 2023
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application mainly concerns the applicants’ complaints that their rights under Articles 5 § 1, 10 and 11 of the Convention were breached on account of police actions which disrupted their picket.
Starting at around 11 a.m. on 28 January 2018 the applicants, after having notified the Lviv mayor’s office, stood in a picket near the Lviv Circus building, to protest against the use of animals in circus shows. The picket participants were associated with the organisations Екологічна платформа (Environmental Platform) and Чорний стяг (Black Banner).
According to the applicants, some far right hooligans were present in the vicinity. At some point one of those activated a smoke grenade and was taken to a police station and charged with the administrative offence of unlawful use of pyrotechnic equipment. The police, for unclear reasons but apparently fearing a violent episode between the two groups, started searching some picket participants, starting with the second applicant. A knife and a metal rod were found on him. Other potentially dangerous items were found on other picket participants, such as knives, hammers, numerous metal rods and clubs.
The participants, including the second applicant, alleged that those items had innocent purposes, such as supporting the slogans or use in construction work. The applicants considered that in fact the police conspired with the far‑right elements to harass the people participating in the picket.
The police took the applicants to a police station but, according to the findings of an internal police investigation (report of 20 April 2018), no arrest records were drawn up, which constituted a disciplinary infraction on the part of the officer in charge. The applicants were released within a couple of hours, from around 3 to 4.15 p.m. Some picket participants were charged with the administrative offence of “petty hooliganism.”
The applicants sought to institute criminal proceedings against the police for the offences of “unlawful interference with the right to peaceful assembly” and “abuse of power”. On 1 December 2021 the State Bureau of Investigation found that there were no indications of a criminal offence in the police officers’ actions and discontinued the proceedings. According to the most recent available information, an appeal against that decision was pending.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Were the applicants deprived of their liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?
2. Do the circumstances of the case disclose an “interference” with the rights guaranteed by Article 10 § 1 and/or Article 11 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was the interference “prescribed by law” and “necessary in a democratic society” within the meaning of Article 10 § 2?
3. Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
APPENDIX
List of applicants
No.
Applicant’s Name
Year of birth
Nationality
Place of residence
1.
Taras Petrovych BOGAY
1989
Ukrainian
Lviv
2.
Rodion Oleksiyovych BAGAYEV
1994
Ukrainian
Chervonograd
3.
Anastasiya Yuriyivna BREZINA
1996
Ukrainian
Lviv
4.
Oksana Andriyivna KHOMYAK
1995
Ukrainian
Stryy
5.
Oleg Vasylyovych KORDYYAKA
1996
Ukrainian
Lviv
6.
Viktor Volodymyrovych KOTSYUBYNSKYY
2000
Ukrainian
Lviv
7.
Ivanna Mykolayivna KUTSIL
1999
Ukrainian
Lviv
8.
Vladyslav Sergiyovych LYTVYN
1998
Ukrainian
Stryy
9.
Marta Andriyivna OSTROVSKA
1993
Ukrainian
Stryy
10.
Gerkhard Olegovych RAZUMOVSKYY
2001
Ukrainian
Lviv
11.
Yelyzaveta Olegivna VERESHCHAGINA
1997
Ukrainian
Lviv
12.
Veronika Oleksandrivna YABLONSKA
1996
Ukrainian
Pidvolochysk