FIFTH SECTIONCASE OF TSIMEYKO v. UKRAINE(Application no. 32960/13)    JUDGMENT STRASBOURG27 June 2024 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Tsimeyko v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Lado Chanturia, President, Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, Mykola Gnatovskyy, judges,and Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar,Having regard to:the application (no. 32960/13) against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 17 May 2013 by a Ukrainian national, Mr Bogdan Andreyevich Tsimeyko (“the applicant”), who was born in 1958, lives in Kyiv and was represented by Mr M.V. Kamenyev, a lawyer practising in Kyiv;the decision to give notice of the complaints under Articles 11 and 13 of the Convention to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”), represented by the Acting Agent, Ms Olga Davydchuk, and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissibleHaving deliberated in private on 6 June 2024,Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE1. The case concerns the applicant’s complaint that he had been prevented from holding public events and that he did not have a remedy in that respect (Articles 11 and 13 of the Convention).2. The applicant was the owner of company S. and the head of an NGO representing investors of bank O. which had gone bankrupt.the applicant’s demonstration in front of the central electoral commission3. Parliamentary elections were scheduled for 28 October 2012. On 23, 25 and 26 October 2012 several non-governmental organisations informed the Kyiv State Administration that they intended to hold demonstrations in front of the Central Electoral Commission.4. On 27 October 2012 the Kyiv District Administrative Court imposed a general ban on holding public events in front of the Central Electoral Commission from 28 October to 12 November 2012. The court referred to Article 39 of the Constitution and Article 182 of the Code of Administrative Justice.5. Company S. appealed against this decision.6. On 29 October 2012 the applicant arrived at the Central Electoral Commission intending to hold a demonstration. The police informed him that, pursuant to a judgment of 27 October 2012, he was not allowed to do so and he left. The police charged the applicant with an administrative offence under Article 185-1 of the Code of Administrative Justice (violation of the procedure for conducting public events), but the courts acquitted him, having found no corpus delicti in his actions, pointing out that the police had not specified in what manner the applicant had violated that provision.7. On 20 December 2012 the Kyiv Administrative Court of Appeal rejected the appeal of company S. and upheld the decision of 27 October 2012 additionally invoking the Decision of the Kyiv City Council of 24 June 1999 on the approval of the Temporary Regulations on the procedure for organising and holding non-governmental public events concerning politics, religion, culture, education, sport or other issues.8. On 22 February 2013 the Higher Administrative Court rejected the appeal in cassation lodged by company S.The applicant’s DEmonstrations In front of the national bank9. Every Thursday from 2006 to 2012 the applicant conducted peaceful demonstrations in front of the National Bank.10. On 2 February and 15 October 2012, the applicant informed the Kyiv State Administration that he intended to hold demonstrations in front of the National Bank protesting against an allegedly ineffective criminal investigation against an official of the National Bank, and against alleged illegal actions of the police in respect of the applicant’s business.11. On 29 October 2012 the Kyiv District Administrative Court, referring to Article 182 of the Code of Administrative Justice, banned demonstrations which the non-governmental organisations T., K., A, V., and P. intended to hold in front of the National Bank from 30 October to 31 December 2012.12. On 1 November and 8 November 2012, the applicant, accompanied by a group of people, arrived at the National Bank to hold his usual Thursday demonstrations. The police dispersed the demonstrations, referring to a decision of 29 October 2012 (see paragraph 11 above).13. The police charged the applicant with an administrative offence under Article 185-1 of the Code of Administrative Justice (violation of the procedure for conducting public events), but the courts acquitted him, having found that he had not violated any legislation and that the judgment of 29 October 2012 did not apply to him.14. In 2013 the applicant complained to the prosecutors, seeking to institute criminal investigations into the actions of the police preventing him from holding demonstrations on 1 and 8 November 2012. Criminal proceedings into the applicant’s complaint were closed and re-opened several times. On 12 February 2020 the Pecherskyy District Court quashed the prosecutors’ decision to terminate the proceedings and ordered them to resume the investigation. It remains unknown what happened to the proceedings after that.court decisions of 5 December 2012 and 28 february 201315. On 5 December 2012 the Kyiv District Administrative Court prohibited Company S. and all other persons from organising public events in front of the National Bank from 6 December 2012 to 31 March 2013.16. The court referred to Article 39 of the Constitution, Article 182 of the Code of Administrative Justice, the Decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR of 28 July 1988 on the procedure for organising and holding meetings, rallies, street marches and demonstrations in the USSR, and the Decision of 24 June 1999 (see paragraph 7 above). On 19 March 2013 the Kyiv District Court of Appeal upheld this decision adding that company S. had not informed the State Administration how many people would participate at its event which prevented the authorities from properly preparing for the demonstration. On 9 April 2013 the Higher Administrative Court rejected the appeal in cassation lodged by company S.17. On 28 February 2013 the Kyiv District Administrative Court prohibited all demonstrations in front of the Prosecutor General’s Office from 1 March to 30 April 2013 citing Article 182 of the Code of Administrative Justice. The applicant appealed but to no avail.THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT18. The applicant complained, referring to Article 11 of the Convention, that he had been prevented from holding public events in front of the Central Electoral Commission on 29 October 2012, and in front of the National Bank on 1 and 8 November 2012, as well as from 6 December 2012 to 31 March 2013. He also complained under the same provision that a court decision of 28 February 2013 banned all demonstrations in front of the Prosecutor General’s Office. The applicant further complained that he did not have an effective remedy in respect of the above complaints (Article 13 of the Convention).19. The Government’s observations were not included in the case file as they had been lodged out of time.20. In his observations the applicant maintained his complaints.ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 11 OF THE CONVENTION21. The general principles applicable in the present case and the relevant domestic law are summarized in Vyerentsov v. Ukraine, no. 20372/11, §§ 52‑57, 11 April 2013, and Cheremskyy v. Ukraine, no. 20981/13, §§ 11‑13 and §§ 25-33, 7 December 2023.Events on 29 October, 1 and 8 November 201222. The Court notes that this part of the application is not manifestly ill‑founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.23. The Court observes that on 29 October 2012 the police prohibited the applicant’s demonstration referring to a general ban on demonstrations imposed by a court decision of 27 October 2012. On 1 and 8 November 2012 the police dispersed the applicant’s demonstrations in front of the National Bank referring to a court decision of 29 October 2012.24. Later on, the police charged the applicant with administrative offences for the events on 29 October, 1 and 8 November 2012, but the courts acquitted him having stated that he had not violated any legislation (see paragraphs 6, 13 and 14 above).25.

Article of the Convention at issue: Article 11
Outcome: violation