FIFTH SECTIONCASE OF SVERDLOVA AND SHEVCHENKO v. UKRAINE(Application no. 73596/13)      JUDGMENT STRASBOURG23 January 2025 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Sverdlova and Shevchenko v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Armen Harutyunyan, President, Andreas Zünd, Mykola Gnatovskyy, judges,and Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar,Having regard to:the application (no. 73596/13) against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 15 November 2013 by two Ukrainian nationals, Ms Oleksandra Igorivna Sverdlova (“the first applicant”) and Ms Olena Olegivna Shevchenko (“the second applicant” – together “the applicants”), who were born in 1989 and 1982 respectively, live in Kyiv and were represented by Ms Y. Zakrevska, lawyer practising in Kyiv;the decision to give notice of the application to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”), represented by Ms Olga Davydchuk, the Acting Agent before the European Court of Human Rights at the Ministry of Justice;the parties’ observations;Having deliberated in private on 19 December 2024,Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE1. Further to a court decision the applicants had to change a venue of their planned event in support of LGBTI rights. They complained that this decision amounted to a violation their rights under Articles 10, 11, 13 and 14 of the Convention.2. On 25 March 2013 the Kyiv City State Administration (“the Administration”) adopted an agenda for the celebration of Kyiv Day, which was planned for 25 May 2013. Kyiv Day is an annual event which takes place in the city centre on the last Sunday of May. As part of the 2013 celebrations, various events had been planned in the central part of the city, namely on Maidan Nezalezhnosti, Khreshchatyk Street and Besarabska Square.3. On 10 April 2013 the second applicant informed the Administration that she intended to organise an “Equality March”, a public event promoting LGBTI rights, on 25 May 2013. The event was planned to take place at the intersection of Khreshchatyk Street and Bohdana Khmelnytskoho Street. The second applicant estimated that around 500 people would participate. On 17 April 2013 the Administration asked the second applicant to change the itinerary of the march.4. On 19 April 2013 the organisational committee of Kyiv Pride 2013 informed the Administration that it intended to organise an “Equality March” on 25 May 2013 on Velyka Vasylkivska Street, from Arena Mall to Leo Tolstoy Square.5. On 22 May 2013 the first applicant informed the Administration that she intended to organise an “Equality March” on 25 May 2013 from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. in the central part of the city (from Arena Mall (Besarabska Square) to Leo Tolstoy Square), with an estimated number of 500 participants.6. Between 17 April and 18 May 2013 several other organisations informed the Administration that they intended to organise demonstrations on 25 May 2013 in the central part of the city.7. On 20 May 2013 the Administration asked the second applicant and the organisational committee of Kyiv Pride to change the locations of their planned events. They refused to do so. The Administration then informed the second applicant that it had applied to the court, requesting an order prohibiting all public events on 25 May 2013 in the “central part of the city”, including Velyka Vasylkivska Street, Bohdana Khmelnytskoho Street, and Leo Tolstoy Square.8. On 22 May 2013 the first applicant informed the Administration that on 25 May 2013 she was planning to hold the “Equality March” from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. from Arena Mall to Leo Tolstoy metro station.9. On 23 May 2013 the Kyiv Administrative Court granted the Administration’s request and prohibited all public events in the central part of the city of Kyiv, “including Velyka Vasylkivska Street, Bohdana Khmelnytskoho Street, and Leo Tolstoy Square”. The court relied on Article 39 of the Constitution and Article 182 of the Code of Administrative Justice. The court noted that on 25 May 2013 the Administration had planned to hold several public events in the city centre as part of the celebrations dedicated to Kyiv Day. Several other organisations and individuals had informed the Administration that they intended to carry out demonstrations in the city centre on 25 May 2013, including Catholic and Orthodox religious organisations, a non-governmental organisation (NGO) of young communists, the organisational committee of Kyiv Pride 2013, and the all‑Ukrainian civil movement “Love against Homosexualism”. The court found that in such circumstances the Administration would be unable to ensure public order in the city centre on 25 May 2013, and as a result conflicts and clashes could occur between the participants in the different events. According to the applicants, the only organisation whose planned route overlapped with their own was the Association of Believers of the Ukrainian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church.10. On an unspecified date after 10 April 2013, two webpages posted instructions on how opponents of the marches could prevent them from taking place. Several organisations, including the NGO for which the first applicant worked, lodged a criminal complaint seeking the institution of an investigation into the information contained on the webpages in question. The outcome of that complaint remains unknown.11. The Equality March took place on 25 May 2013, following a different itinerary from the one which had originally been planned. The route had been changed by the organisers on 24 May 2013 to ensure the safety of the participants: the march moved from the city centre along Prospect Peremohy in the direction of Dovzhenko Film Studios. Only the participants who had registered on a dedicated website had been informed of the change of itinerary and were able to attend the march. Those who had not been registered on the website were not informed of the change and did not attend. About sixty people participated in the march, rather than the 600 originally planned. The applicants did not participate in the march. The first applicant had not been informed of the change of itinerary and the second applicant was worried for her safety during the march.12. The second applicant did not appeal against the decision of 23 May 2013. An appeal by the first applicant was dismissed by the Kyiv Administrative Court of Appeal on 24 July 2013. On 26 March 2014 the Higher Administrative Court allowed a cassation appeal by the first applicant and quashed the decisions of the lower courts, stating that they had failed to establish that various public events in the city centre could indeed have led to a threat to public safety and order. In 2020 the applicants informed the Court about the decision of 26 March 2014.13. The applicants asserted, providing copies of material taken from public sources, that both before and after 25 May 2013, a number of members of parliament had publicly called for a ban on the Equality March and that no action had been taken in respect of the calls for violence against the participants in the march.THE COURT’S ASSESSMENTgeneral admissibility issues14. The Government submitted that the applicants had not informed the Court of the decision of the Higher Administrative Court and, as such, they had abused their right of application to the Court.15. The applicants submitted that in 2020 they had informed the Court of the decision of the Higher Administrative Court. They further stated that the decision of that court had been given ten months after the date of their event, and for that reason it could not be considered an effective remedy and, as such, it had not been information which was essential for the examination of their application by the Court.16. The Court observes that the applicants informed the Court of the decision of the Higher Administrative Court in 2020 and dismisses the Government’s objections in this respect.ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLEs 10 and 11 of the CONVENTION17. The applicants complained, invoking Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention, that the event which they intended to organise could not take place as planned. The Court, which is the master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case, considers that the complaint in respect of which the applicants relied on Articles 10 and 11 falls to be examined solely under Article 11 of the Convention. In particular, in the Court’s opinion, in the circumstances of the present case, Article 10 is to be regarded as a lex generalis in relation to Article 11, which is a lex specialis (see Ezelin v. France, 26 April 1991, § 35, Series A no. 202, and Kudrevičius and Others v. Lithuania [GC], no. 37553/05, § 91, ECHR 2015). The Court will thus examine this complaint under Article 11, interpreted where appropriate in the light of Article 10 (see Lashmankin and Others v. Russia, nos. 57818/09 and 14 others, §§ 363-65, 7 February 2017).Admissibility18. The Government submitted that as the second applicant had not appealed against the decision of 23 May 2013, her complaints were inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.19. The applicants argued that the second applicant had not appealed because she had known that her appeal would not be examined before 25 May 2013.20. The Court notes that the court of appeal examined the first applicant’s appeal against the decision of 23 May 2013 only after 25 May 2013, namely in July 2013 (see paragraph 12 above). There is no reason to believe that had the second applicant appealed against the decision of 23 May 2013 the courts would have examined her appeal before 25 May 2013. In particular, there is no evidence that the domestic legislation required the courts to examine appeals against a decision prohibiting public events before those events were planned to take place. The Government’s objection must therefore be dismissed.21. The Government further submitted that the applicants had still been able to carry out their event, albeit in a different location. The applicants’ assertion that fewer people had been able to attend the event as a result of the change of itinerary was not supported by any evidence. Both applicants had notified the Administration that they planned to hold the Equality March, which meant that they were organisers of the event and as such, the first applicant’s allegation that she did not know about the change of the venue was not convincing. As regards the second applicant, she had not adduced any evidence that her concerns for her safety were well founded. Against that background, the applicants’ complaints under Articles 10 and 11 were manifestly ill-founded.22. The applicants argued that the decisions of the first-instance court and of the court of appeal had not been sufficiently reasoned. In particular, they noted that the itinerary of other organisations which had planned their events in the city centre on 25 May 2013 did not overlap with the itinerary of the applicants’ march. The only organisation whose route had overlapped was the Association of Believers of the Ukrainian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church. They stated that the first applicant was not an organiser of the march and could not have known that the location had been changed.23. The Court considers that the Government’s objections are closely linked to the merits of the case. It therefore joins them to the merits.24. 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.Merits25. The Government did not submit any observations

Outcome for Article 11: violation