CASE OF GATSKO AND PANOV v. UKRAINE

 

 

FIFTH SECTION

CASE OF GATSKO AND PANOV v. UKRAINE

(Application no. 52709/13)

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT
 

STRASBOURG

12 March 2026

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Gatsko and Panov v. Ukraine,

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

 Andreas Zünd, President,
 Mykola Gnatovskyy,
 Vahe Grigoryan, judges,
and Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to:

the application (no. 52709/13) against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 9 August 2013 by two Ukrainian nationals, Mr Vasyl Mykolayovych Gatsko (“the first applicant”) and Mr Maksym Viktorovych Panov (“the second applicant”), who were born in 1982 and 1985 respectively, live in Kyiv, and were represented by Mr Mykhaylo Tarakhkalo and Ms Yuliya Kovalenko, lawyers practising in Kyiv;

the decision to give notice of the application to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Acting Agent, Ms Olga Davydchuk;

the parties’ observations;

 

Having deliberated in private on 12 February 2026,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

1.  The case concerns the applicants’ conviction for holding a peaceful demonstration and various issues arising from it.

2.  The applicants were leaders of the political party D.

3.  On 27 December 2012 the Holosyyvskyy District Court of Kyiv found the second applicant guilty of infringing the procedure for holding public events and closed the criminal proceedings against him on the grounds that they were time-barred. That decision is not the subject of the present application.

4.  On 1 April 2013 the first applicant informed the Novi Petrivtsi Village Council that on 10 April 2013 he intended to organise a demonstration in front of the residence of the President of Ukraine at 19 Ivana Franka Street, Novi Petrivtsi. The aim of the demonstration was to bring the President’s attention to poor state of road infrastructure in the country. The applicants declared that there might be up to five hundred possible participants.

5.  The Village Council requested that the Kyiv District Administrative Court prohibit that demonstration.

6.  On 5 April 2013 the Kyiv District Administrative Court prohibited the D. party from holding the above-mentioned demonstration. The court noted that holding a demonstration at 19 Ivana Franka Street, Novi Petrivtsi was not allowed by the decision of the Executive Committee of the Novi Petrivtsi Village Council of 31 December 2012 on the procedure for organising and holding meetings, rallies, street marches and demonstrations in Novi Petrivtsi. The court also noted that the applicants’ demonstration might disrupt road works aimed at removing the effects of flood damage which were being carried out at that location. Both applicants were present in court for the pronouncement of the decision on 5 April 2013. They did not appeal against that decision.

7.  According to the applicants, on 10 April 2013 they arrived at the President’s residence, accompanied by a number of journalists, to check whether the above-mentioned (see paragraph 6 above) works were indeed being carried out.

8.  While the applicants were leaving the scene, the police stopped them, brought them to the police station and later the same day to the Vyshgorodskyy District Court. The police accused the applicants of breaching Articles 185 [1] and 185-1[2] of the Code of Administrative Offences (hereinafter - “the CAO”).

9.  On the same day, the court fined the first applicant 170 Ukrainian hryvnias ((UAH) – approximately 16 euros (EUR)) for breaching Articles 185 and 185-1 of the CAO and released him. The court found that on 10 April 2013 the first applicant had participated in a demonstration and had refused to follow a police officer to the police station. In his application to the Court the first applicant stated that he had not appealed, however, the Government provided a copy of the decision of the Kyiv Region Court of Appeal of 3 June 2013 rejecting the first applicant’s appeal against the decision of 10 April 2013.

10.  Still on the same day, by a separate decision the court fined the second applicant for disobeying a police officer under Article 185 of the CAO and ordered the police to conduct further investigations into the remainder of the accusations against him. The second applicant did not appeal against the fine.

11.  After the court hearing on 10 April 2013, both applicants were allowed to leave but the second applicant was ordered to appear in court the next day.

Subsequent events concerning the second applicant

12.  On 11 April 2013 the second applicant appeared before the Vyshgorodskyy District Court, which found him guilty of conducting a demonstration on 10 April 2013 despite the ban imposed by the court decision of 5 April 2013 (see paragraph 6 above). The court noted that the second applicant had organised the demonstration and sentenced him to seven days’ administrative detention under Article 185-1 § 2 of the CAO. The court relied on witness statements of the police officers present at the scene and statements of the Head of the Novi Petrivtsi Village Council who said that the second applicant had informed him that he had planned to organise the demonstration on 10 April 2013.

13.  In its decision, the court noted that “by a decision of 27 December 2012 [the second applicant] was found guilty of [infringing the procedure for holding public events]” and that the proceedings against him were closed on the grounds that they were time-barred.

14.  After the court hearing the second applicant was taken to a temporary detention centre, where he was allowed to meet his lawyer, who, on the same day, appealed against the decision of 11 April 2013. The lawyer stated that the second applicant had been at the President’s residence with other people and that he had not been holding a demonstration but had been checking whether there were any roadworks as mentioned in the court decision of 5 April 2013.

15.  A court hearing in the Kyiv Region Court of Appeal was scheduled for 19 April 2013. On the same day, the applicant’s lawyer lodged written requests asking the court to call witnesses who had been in front of the President’s residence with the second applicant and to examine video footage of the events of 10 April 2013. According to the second applicant, the court refused to grant those requests and failed to justify its refusal.

16.  On 19 April 2013 the Kyiv Region Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. It stated that the fact that the second applicant had held a demonstration on 10 April 2013 was supported by police records and statements given by the head of the Village Council.

Subsequent events concerning the first applicant

17.  On 12 April 2013 around 10 a.m. the first applicant arrived in the village of Novi Petrivtsi intending to hold a demonstration to call for the release of the second applicant. The first applicant was detained by the police and brought before the Vyshgorodskyy District Court, where he met his lawyer and signed a contract for legal representation. After that, the first applicant was released and went home.

18.  On 13 April 2013 the Vyshgorodskyy District Court sentenced the first applicant to five days’ administrative detention under Article 185-1 § 2 of the COA for repeatedly infringing the procedure for holding a demonstration established by the former Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR of 28 July 1988. The court also referred to the decision of the Constitutional Court of 19 April 2001 (see Cheremskyy v. Ukraine, no. 20981/13, § 15, 7 December 2023) and Article 39[3] of the Constitution. The court noted that the first applicant had organised the meeting, as established by the people who had been with him and who had been questioned by the police, and also by the fact that he had notified the local authorities of his intention to hold a demonstration before it had been due to start.

19.  On 16 April 2013 the first applicant’s lawyer appealed.

20.  On 28 May 2013 the Kyiv Region Court of Appeal upheld the decision of 13 April 2013. The court noted that the first applicant had violated the procedure for organising and holding demonstrations and breached Article 39 of the Constitution because he had informed the Village Council about the demonstration only one hour before it had been due to start.

21.  The applicants lodged their application with the Court on 9 August 2013. In 2018 the Court informed the applicants that the case file had been lost and invited them to resubmit the application form and any accompanying documents. A new application form signed on 29 January 2019 was received by the Court on 3 April 2019. The applicants also submitted to the Court a copy of their first application form lodged on 9 August 2013. Copies of both application forms were forwarded to the Government when they were given notice of the application.

THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT

ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 11 OF THE CONVENTION

22.  The applicants complained under Article 11 of the Convention that they had been sanctioned for holding peaceful demonstrations.

Court decision of 10 April 2013 in respect of the first applicant

23.  The Court notes that the amount of the fine imposed on the first applicant in the decision of 10 April 2013 was rather insignificant (see paragraph 9 above) and he did not suffer a significant disadvantage within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (b). It also finds, having regard to all the facts of the case, that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require an examination of this part of the application on the merits. Accordingly, the Court considers that this complaint must be declared inadmissible in accordance with Article 35 § 3 (b) of the Convention.

Court decisions of 11 and 13 April 2013Admissibility

24.  The Government submitted that the applicants had not lodged their application until 2019, which was clearly more than six months after the date when the events had taken place and the final decisions against them had been taken. They further stated that the applicants had not appealed against the decision of 5 April 2013 and had not exhausted domestic remedies. They also argued that the court decisions of 11 and 13 April 2013 against the applicants had been justified and that their complaint in that regard was manifestly ill‑founded. The Government pointed out, referring to various court decisions delivered in 2018-2020 that the domestic legislative framework and practice were in line with the requirements of Article 11 of the Convention.

25.  The applicants maintained their complaints.

26.  The Court notes that the application had been lodged with the Court on 9 August 2013 (see paragraph 21 above), therefore the Government’s objection regarding the six-month time-limit must be rejected.

27.  The Court observes that the decision of 5 April 2013 concerned only the event on 10 April 2013 and there were no court decisions prohibiting the demonstration on 12 April 2013. It further observes that the courts were not obliged by any legally binding time frame to give their final decisions before the planned date of the applicants’ event on 10 April 2013. The Court is not therefore persuaded that appealing against the decision of 5 April 2013 could have provided adequate redress in respect of the alleged violations of the Convention (see Bączkowski and Others v. Poland, no. 1543/06, §§ 79-84, 3 May 2007).

28.  The Court further notes that this part of the application is neither manifestly ill-founded nor inadmissible on any other grounds listed in Article 35 of the Convention. It must therefore be declared admissible.

Merits

29.  By its decisions of 11 And 13 April 2013 respectively, the Vyshgorodskyy District Court sentenced the applicants to administrative detention under Article 185‑1 of the CAO for infringing the procedure for holding demonstrations. It relied, in respect of the second applicant, to the court decision of 5 April 2013 and, in respect of the first applicant, to the Decree of the former Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR of 28 July 1988. The Court notes that it has previously found that the legislative provisions in issue do not comply with the Convention requirement of the quality of the law (see Cheremskyy v. Ukraine, cited above §§ 29-40). It sees no reason to depart from that finding in the present case as no new legislation on freedom of assembly was adopted in Ukraine between August 2012, when the events in Cheremskyy v. Ukraine took place and April 2013, when the events in the present case took place. Therefore, there is no need to determine whether the other two requirements of Article 11 § 2 (legitimate aim and necessity of the interference) have been complied with.

30.  Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 11 of the Convention in respect of both applicants.

VIOLATIONs OF articles 6 and 7 of the Convention

31.  With regard to the decisions of the Vyshgorodskyy District Court of 11 and 13 April 2013, the applicants complained that they had not had a fair hearing as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. In particular, they complained that the courts had failed to provide relevant and sufficient reasons for their decisions and had failed to address the applicants’ arguments, which had been pertinent and specific. The applicants further complained that the impartiality requirement of Article 6 § 1 had not been observed given the absence of any prosecuting authority and that they had not been afforded adequate time and facilities for the preparation of their defence (Article 6 § 3 (b)). Invoking Article 7 of the Convention, the applicants complained that they were found guilty of breaching the procedure for the holding of demonstrations, despite the fact that such procedure was not clearly defined in the domestic law.

32.  The second applicant also complained that he had been unable to examine witnesses against them and to obtain the attendance of witnesses on his behalf (Article 6 § 3 (d)), and that Article 6 § 2 of the Convention had not been complied with in the light of the statement made regarding the court decision of 27 December 2012. He also complained that he had been unable to defend himself through legal assistance of his own choosing before the first instance court, as required by Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention.

33.  Having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties and its findings above, the Court considers that it has dealt with the main legal questions raised by the case and that there is no need to examine the remaining complaints (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014).

APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

34.  The first applicant claimed 10,000 euros (EUR) and the second applicant claimed EUR 15,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. Each applicant also claimed EUR 3,600 in respect of legal costs incurred before the Court.

35.  The Government contested those claims.

36.  The Court awards each applicant EUR 4,500 in respect of non‑pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable. It also awards each applicant EUR 1,000 in respect of legal costs, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

Declares the complaint under Article 11 of the Convention regarding the decisions of 11 and 13 April 2013 admissible and the remainder of the complaint inadmissible;Holds that there has been a violation of Article 11 of the Convention in respect of both applicants;Holds that there is no need to examine the admissibility and merits of the complaints under Articles 6 and Article 7 of the Convention;Holds

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay each applicant, within three months, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:

(i)  EUR 4,500 (four thousand five hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;

(ii)  EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, in respect of costs and expenses;

(b)  that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;

Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 12 March 2026, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

 

 Martina Keller Andreas Zünd
 Deputy Registrar President

[1] “Malicious disobedience to a lawful order or demand by a police officer who is carrying out his official duties ... shall be punishable by a fine of between eight and fifteen times the minimum monthly wage, or by correctional labour of between one and two months with a deduction of 20% of earnings; or, in the event that in the particular circumstances of the case and with regard to the offender’s character these measures are found to be insufficient, by administrative detention of up to fifteen days.”

 

[2] “A breach of the procedure for organising and holding meetings, rallies, street marches and demonstrations shall be punishable by a reprimand or by a fine of between ten and twenty-five times the minimum monthly wage.

The same actions committed within a year of the application of administrative penalties or by the organiser of the meeting, rally, street procession or demonstration shall be punishable by a fine of between twenty and one hundred times the minimum monthly wage, or by correctional labour of one to two months, with a deduction of 20% of earnings; or by administrative detention of up to fifteen days.”

 

[3]Citizens have the right to assemble peacefully without arms and to hold meetings, rallies, processions and demonstrations, upon notifying in advance the bodies of executive power or bodies of local self-government.

Restrictions on the exercise of this right may be established by a court in accordance with the law and only in the interests of national security and public order, with the purpose of preventing disturbances or crimes, protecting the health of the population, or protecting the rights and freedoms of other persons.

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy