CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 19 décembre 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6C5BED22 { margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .sE55E11EC { width:137.42pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s2F3EB0E4 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .sBAADFE8C { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold }   FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 2880/20 Oleksiy Viktorovych MOMOT against Ukraine and 6 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 19   December 2024 as a Committee composed of:   Diana Sârcu , President ,   Kateřina Šimáčková,   Mykola Gnatovskyy , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The list of applicants is set out in the appended table. The applicants’ complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings were communicated to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”). THE LAW Joinder of the applications Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. Complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings) In the present applications, having examined all the material before it, the Court considers that for the reasons stated below, the complaints about the alleged lack of impartiality of the tribunal in the impugned administrative offence proceedings are inadmissible. In particular, the Court notes that the impartiality of the domestic courts was not called into question under either the subjective or the objective tests, and that the applicants did not point to any specific circumstances which could cause the Court to doubt the impartiality of the domestic courts (see Figurka v. Ukraine , no. 28232/22, § 30-44, 16 November 2023). It cannot be considered that the domestic courts took the role of a prosecuting party or were put in a position requiring them to take the role of a prosecuting party, thereby undermining their impartiality or the fairness of the proceedings. In view of the above, the Court finds that these complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §§   3 and   4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 23 January 2025.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Diana Sârcu   Acting Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article   6 § 1 of the Convention (lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth Representative’s name and location Penalty Date of final domestic decision Name of court     2880/20 02/01/2020 Oleksiy Viktorovych MOMOT 1954   Bondarenko Yuriy Yuryevich Kropyvnystkyy   suspension of driving licence, administrative fine of UAH 10,200 03/07/2019, Luhansk Court of Appeal     5602/20 16/01/2020 Yelshchan Ilgar ogly ABBASOV 1979   Bondarenko Yuriy Yuryevich Kropyvnystkyy suspension of driving licence for 1 year, administrative fine of UAH 10,200 04/10/2019 Lugansk Court of Appeal     42430/20 01/09/2020 Maksym Vasylyovych SHVAB 1989   Reshetov Viktor Viktorovych Chernivsti suspension of driving licence for 1 year, administrative fine of UAH 10,200 11/12/2019, Chernivtsi Court of Appeal     44336/21 26/08/2021 Olena Yuryivna LUKYANCHENKO 1970       administrative fine of UAH 34,000 24/03/2021, Kyiv Court of Appeal     46380/21 09/09/2021 Oleg Viktorovych KONOPKO 1990   Samulyak Mykhaylo Yuriyovych Ternopil suspension of driving licence, administrative fine of UAH 10,200 06/05/2021, Ternopil Court of Appeal     46418/21 08/09/2021 Sergiy Vasylyovych FIL 1997   Samulyak Mykhaylo Yuriyovych Ternopil suspension of driving licence, administrative fine of UAH 10,200 18/03/2021, Ternopil Court of Appeal     41559/23 08/11/2023 Yegor Sergiyovych NIKITCHENKO 1991       suspension of driving licence for 1 year, administrative fine of UAH 17,000 26/10/2023, Chernihiv Court of Appeal