Published on 7 April 2026
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 35686/22
Vyacheslav Yuriyovych PLESKACH
against Ukraine
lodged on 5 May 2022
communicated on 17 March 2026
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns alleged lack of access to public information and alleged lack of reasons in the domestic courts’ decisions adopted in the proceedings instituted by the applicant.
The applicant, a lawyer who also runs two Facebook pages dedicated to legal practice, sought access to a copy of the Supreme Court’s (“the SC”) decision in a case concerning an appeal against the imposition of sanctions on private parties by a Presidential decree, on which he wished to report. His relevant request was rejected since the decision in issue had been taken in camera and was, thus, not open to public.
The applicant’s appeal against that refusal was granted by the SC which found that the document requested was public information and that a balancing exercise was required, as provided for by the Law on Access to Public Information.
On 9 February 2022, the Grand Chamber of the SC reversed that judgment, ruling that access to a court decision delivered in camera was regulated, as lex specialis, by the Law on Access to Court Decisions which clearly provided that such decisions were not public. The applicant alleged that the SC did not respond to his argument that there might have been divergent application of the law as his earlier similar claim had been granted.
The applicant filed a constitutional complaint alleging that the sweeping and indefinite prohibition on publication/dissemination of court judgments adopted in camera was in contradiction with the Constitution of Ukraine and the state’s relevant international obligations. He cited domestic case law examples, international instruments and examples of case law of other states.
On 31 May 2022 the Constitutional Court (“the CCU”) refused to open proceedings into the applicant’s complaint, having found that he essentially disagreed with the interpretation of law given by the general courts.
The applicant complained, relying on Articles 6 and 10 of the Convention, of the refusal to grant him access to publicly important information and the fact that the courts, including the CCU, disregarded his pertinent arguments.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Was Article 10 applicable to the applicant’s case (see Magyar Helsinki Bizottság v. Hungary [GC], no. 18030/11, §§ 149-70, 8 November 2016)?
2. 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? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 10 § 2?
In particular, did the domestic courts provide sufficient reasons for their decisions to reject the applicant’s claims?