Published on 18 May 2026
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 13448/25
Kyrylo Mykolayovych OVSYANYY and Oleksandr Borysovych MAZUR
against Ukraine
lodged on 10 April 2025
communicated on 30 April 2026
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the applicants’ complaint that private persons interfered with their journalistic activities (Article 10 of the Convention).
On 4 October 2021 the applicants were at the State-owned bank U. recording an interview with the bank’s director M.
Having been displeased with some of the questions asked by the applicants, M. called O., T., and P. and ordered them to take away the applicants’ cameras and the recording which they had made.
Applying physical force, T. and O. took the camera and the recording from the second applicant and left both applicants locked in the premises for some time.
Afterwards, P. gave the applicants back their equipment and escorted them out of the premises.
The applicants discovered that the recording of the interview had been deleted. However, they were later able to restore it.
Investigation into the events of 4 October 2021 was opened. On 14 September 2022 a court found M. and two employees of the bank guilty of obstructing journalistic activities and fined them. The first applicant and O. appealed.
On 17 March 2025 the Kyiv Court of Appeal cancelled the decision of 14 September 2021 and discontinued the criminal offence proceedings on the grounds that the time-limit for prosecution under the statute of limitations had expired on 4 October 2024.
The applicants complain, invoking Article 10 of the Convention, that M. and the employees of the bank interfered with their journalistic activities, but have not been punished. The State thus failed to create a favourable environment for participation in public debate allowing them to receive and share information without fear.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has there been an interference with the applicants’ freedom of expression, in particular, their right to receive and impart information and ideas, 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?
2. Has the State dispose of their positive obligation to establish an effective system for protecting the applicants’ rights and creating a favourable environment for participation in public debate, allowing them to receive and share information and ideas without fear?