CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 24 avril 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sCDED223E { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s39E5096F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .sC176A5AB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:9pt } .s7DF027B3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:9pt } .sEBD403CE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:7pt } .sD37EA1E4 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:7pt } .s2E1B62A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .s28F0D84C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .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 } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s2044A09A { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s66E9FC38 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s879C130D { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s67CAFE05 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7C22C014 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s50CB62E2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:32.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify } .s2B9FE6BC { width:7.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s5DE585A1 { margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDD998142 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s55F67FD3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCD82236A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCD7D0356 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:4.85pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sC47DA4E2 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.51pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7CAC83C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:19.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBD1BE8CC { width:33.89pt; display:inline-block } .sE37FF279 { width:144.11pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s86731D0A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt }   FIFTH SECTION CASE OF SYTNYK v. UKRAINE (Application no. 16497/20)   JUDGMENT   Art 6 (criminal) • Fair hearing • Impartial tribunal • Seriously flawed administrative-offence proceedings resulting in the conviction of a high-level anti-corruption official for accepting gifts (holidays) • Domestic courts’ failure to address defence arguments regarding the reliability of decisive prosecution witness statements • Defence witness evidence disregarded • Burden of proof distributed in an arbitrary manner depriving the applicant of any practical opportunity to effectively challenge the charges against him • Objectively justified fears as to the trial judge’s impartiality due to his possible dependence on the adverse party • Appeal court’s failure to remedy the trial judge’s unreasoned refusal to recuse himself Art 8 • Private life • Publication of information, identifying the applicant with a description of the offence at issue and the penalty imposed, on the publicly accessible State “Corrupt Officials Register”, for an indefinite period • Impugned measure seriously prejudiced the applicant’s professional and social reputation • Art   8 applicable • Domestic authorities’ failure to adduce relevant and sufficient reasons • Continued publication of the applicant’s name on the Register deprived him of any means to defend himself from attacks on his moral and professional integrity • Impugned interference disproportionate Art 18 • Art 6 • Art 8 • Restriction for unauthorised purposes • Cumulative circumstances indicating predominant ulterior purpose behind the applicant’s prosecution of personally attacking his moral and professional integrity   Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court.   STRASBOURG 24 April 2025 FINAL   24/07/2025   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Sytnyk v. Ukraine, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Mattias Guyomar , President ,   María Elósegui,   Gilberto Felici,   Andreas Zünd,   Diana Sârcu,   Kateřina Šimáčková,   Mykola Gnatovskyy , judges , and Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   16497/20) against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Ukrainian national, Mr   Artem Sergiyovych Sytnyk (“the applicant”), on 7 April 2020; the decision to give notice to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) of the complaints under Articles 6 § 1 and 8, as well as Article   18 in conjunction with Articles 6 and 8, and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 18 March 2025, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The case concerns the alleged unfairness of administrative-offence proceedings against the applicant, a high-level public official in the field of anti-corruption, as a result of which he himself was found guilty of a corruption-related administrative offence, and the subsequent inclusion of his name, for an indefinite period, in a publicly accessible register of corrupt officials. The applicant raised complaints under Articles   6 § 1 and 8 of the Convention in that regard. Furthermore, relying on Article   18 taken in conjunction with Articles 6 and   8, he complained that the abovementioned proceedings and the ensuing measure had been driven by improper ulterior motives. THE FACTS 2.     The applicant, Mr Artem Sergiyovych Sytnyk, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1979 and lives in Brovary. He was represented before the Court by Mr N.S. Kulchytskyy and Mr M.V. Bem, lawyers practising in Kyiv. 3.     The Government were represented by their Agent, Ms   Marharyta Sokorenko, from the Ministry of Justice. 4.     The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. Background 5 .     In April 2015 the applicant was appointed to the post of Director of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (“the NABU”), a central executive agency competent, in particular, to investigate allegations of corruption by top-level State officials. Allegedly relevant investigations and verifications by the NABU In respect of the son of the Minister of the Interior 6 .     In March 2016 the NABU launched a criminal investigation into alleged large-scale embezzlement of public funds by a Ministry of the Interior official, which had allegedly taken place with the direct involvement of the son of the then Minister of the Interior. More specifically, the investigation concerned the procurement of thousands of allegedly overpriced poor-quality backpacks for the Ministry, the contract for which had been awarded to a company allegedly linked to the Minister’s family. 7.     In October 2017 the NABU arrested the son of the Minister of the Interior after searching his home. 8.     The Ministry of the Interior heavily criticised the NABU for the case. It stated on its website that the investigation was “grounded in politics rather than the law”. 9 .     Commenting on the events to the mass media, the Minister of the Interior called the individuals involved “scamps”. 10.     In July 2018 the Specialised Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office discontinued the criminal proceedings for want of evidence. In respect of the Prosecutor General 11 .     In October 2016 the NABU announced an “analytical verification” in respect of an allegation of corruption involving the Prosecutor General’s family. No further information is known in that regard. Reported conflicts between the NABU and the Prosecutor General’s Office 12 .     As known from various media reports, in August 2016 the Prosecutor General’s Office (“the PGO”) apprehended several NABU staff members when they were carrying out some covert investigative activities. Although denying the existence of any conflict between the two institutions, their leaders publicly exchanged accusations of unlawful actions. 13.     In September 2018 the Prosecutor General stated at a press conference that preparations were under way for a criminal investigation into allegations that the applicant had breached the secrecy of a pre-trial investigation in an   unrelated case. Attempted legislative amendments aimed at simplifying the procedure for dismissing the NABU director 14.     In December 2017 a parliamentary bill was introduced seeking to enable Parliament to dismiss the NABU director [1] without requiring negative findings from an independent audit (a prerequisite for such a dismissal under the existing legal provisions). The bill was eventually withdrawn, reportedly under pressure from international anti-corruption organisations. Criminal investigation in respect of the applicant and related events 15 .     On 14 March 2019 the PGO launched a criminal investigation into allegations that the applicant had breached the secrecy of a pre-trial investigation. No further information is available in that regard. It is only known that the applicant’s friend, N., was questioned as a witness and that his mention of having been involved in organising holidays for the applicant’s family was deemed to warrant further investigation. 16 .     As a result, on 23 April 2019 N. was questioned on that particular issue. He replied in the positive to the investigator’s question whether he maintained his earlier statements [2] . N. said that he had spoken to the applicant about a fishing and hunting reserve, P.S., as an attractive holiday destination, and about having a relative, K., who was on friendly terms with the management of that reserve. The applicant had allegedly asked N. to help him organise holidays there for his family and friends, to which N. had agreed. According to N., it was his relative K. who had taken care of the payment for the accommodation and N. had reimbursed him subsequently. N.   said that he had not felt comfortable asking the applicant to reimburse him. The investigator noted that, as N. had previously stated, the applicant had taken holidays in the reserve on five occasions from 2017 to 2019, and every time N. had paid about 100,000 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH) [3] from his own pocket to cover all the expenses. N.   claimed that, in addition to paying for the accommodation, he had also purchased various foodstuffs, drinks, children’s toys and other items for the applicant and the rest of the group. He further asserted that, although, as a general rule, the applicant and his friends had cooked their meals themselves, the applicant had sometimes asked N. to arrange for catering by the staff of the reserve, which N. had done at his own expense, through his relative. N.   was not able to specify the expenses he had allegedly borne but estimated them at about UAH 100,000 each time the applicant stayed in the reserve. 17 .     The report on the witness questioning summarised above was leaked to the mass media by “a source in law-enforcement authorities”. It received widespread media coverage, which mainly emphasised the amounts allegedly spent by N. on the applicant’s “luxurious” holidays. Administrative-offence proceedings against the applicant 18 .     On 10 May 2019 the PGO forwarded the materials relating to N.’s questioning (see paragraphs 15-16 above) to the National Police of Ukraine, with a note that the circumstances of the case might disclose an administrative offence [4] under Article 172-5 of the Code of Administrative Offences (that is, a breach of legal restrictions on accepting gifts by certain categories of State officials – see paragraph 45 below). 19 .     On the same date the Prosecutor General made a statement to the mass media that, as it appeared, the applicant had “forgotten to pay quite considerable bills for the holidays of his family and friends”. 20 .     On 17 May 2019 N. was questioned by the investigator of the Anti-Corruption Unit of the National Police Economic Protection Department. He stated that the applicant, along with his family and friends, had been on holiday in the reserve during the following two periods: from 29 December 2018 to 2 January 2019 (four days) and from 8 March to 10 March 2019 (two days). N. reiterated his earlier statements to the effect that his relative, K., had organised and had paid for the accommodation, and N. had subsequently reimbursed him. However, N. claimed not to remember the exact amounts he had allegedly reimbursed to K. In this round of questioning N. did not refer to any expenses other than the accommodation. He answered in the positive to the investigator’s question whether he had paid UAH 3,000 and UAH   4,500 [5] to rent a holiday house for the applicant and the applicant’s family and friends during the above-mentioned two periods. N. did not mention this time that the applicant had stayed in the reserve on any other occasions. 21.     Also on 17 May 2019 the investigator questioned K., who stated that he had indeed organised to rent a holiday house in the reserve during the two periods at N.’s request. According to K., the amounts paid and eventually reimbursed to him by N. had been based on a 70% discount, which K. had obtained owing to his friendly relations with the reserve’s director. 22.     The reserve’s director and two of its staff members, who were also questioned on the same day, generally confirmed K.’s account of the events. 23 .     On 5 July 2019 the applicant gave written explanations to the investigator. He asserted that, having found out from his friend, N., about the possibility of relatively inexpensive accommodation in a holiday house in the P.S. reserve, he had indeed asked N. for such accommodation, for himself and several friends and their families, on two occasions. Each time the applicant and his friends had brought food with them and had cooked their meals themselves. The applicant emphasised that he had reimbursed the full cost of the accommodation to N., as it had been verbally agreed between them. He stated that the other people with whom he had shared the rented house could confirm that. 24.     On 12 July 2019 the investigator drew up two administrative-offence reports, in which he concluded that the applicant had accepted gifts from N. in breach of the Code of Administrative Offences on two occasions. The investigator considered that it had been established that N. had paid for accommodation in a holiday house in the P.S. reserve, which the applicant had used twice at no cost. Relying on the general accommodation price list for the P.S. reserve, the investigator established the cost of the accommodation (“the gift value”), at UAH 25,000 [6] . While it was not disputed that the actual total cost of the accommodation had been UAH   7,500 [7] – regard being had to the 70% discount, – the investigator noted that that discount was not publicly available and was not applicable to the applicant. In the absence of any documentary evidence to the contrary, the investigator found that the applicant had never reimbursed N. for the accommodation. 25.     The case was referred to the Sarny Town Court (“the Sarny Court”) for examination by a single-judge formation. It was assigned to Judge R. 26.     The PGO assigned one of its prosecutors for participation in the judicial proceedings in question. 27 .     During the initial two hearings, Judge R. and his assistant referred to the applicant as “the offender” until the applicant made a remark that it was inappropriate. 28 .     The applicant requested Judge R. to withdraw from the examination of the case, claiming that there were reasons to question his impartiality. The applicant argued, in particular, that Judge R. was involved as a witness in ongoing criminal proceedings against a former prosecutor, who was suspected of having taken a bribe allegedly with the aim of sharing it with Judge R. [8] The applicant claimed that, since the prosecution authorities could change the judge’s procedural status in that case from a witness to a suspect at any moment, they could be regarded as having leverage over him in the applicant’s case. In the applicant’s view, the Prosecutor General had already expressed a preconceived idea about the applicant’s guilt in his statement to the mass media on 10 May 2019 (see paragraph 19 above). 29 .     Judge R. rejected the above withdrawal request as unsubstantiated, without any further reasoning. 30 .     In his pleadings to the Sarny Court the applicant reiterated his account of the events previously given to the investigator (see paragraph 23 above). He contended that N. had made false statements to the prosecution authorities and the police. In the applicant’s view, N. might have done so under pressure. The applicant pointed out, in particular, that on 13 March 2019 (that is, shortly after the second holiday) N. had applied to the authorities to have a criminal conviction of his from 2005 removed from the official records. The applicant advanced that such request was likely to have rendered N. vulnerable to pressure from the prosecution authorities. The applicant emphasised that, apart from N.’s allegations, there was no indication, let alone any evidence, that he had expected or had accepted any gifts or any tangible or intangible benefits amounting to gifts. The applicant put forward that the administrative-offence proceedings against him, accompanied by the constant dissemination of false and distorted information on that subject in the mass media, were nothing more than attempts to discredit him in revenge for the NABU investigations affecting the Prosecutor General and the Minister of the Interior. 31 .     The applicant’s friends, P. and S., who, with their families, had shared the holiday house in the reserve with the applicant [9] , also made statements before the Sarny Court. They confirmed having witnessed the verbal agreement between the applicant and N. to the effect that the former would reimburse the latter the accommodation. P. and S. also testified that, as had been agreed, after the holidays they had paid the applicant for their share of the expenses, and that the applicant had eventually reimbursed the full cost of the accommodation to N. 32 .     N. and his relative K. were also questioned during the court hearing. Neither of them remembered the cost of the accommodation for the applicant’s holidays in the reserve. While K. submitted that it had been N. who had carried out the payments, N. stated that it had been K., whom he had then reimbursed (without being able to specify the exact amounts). N. replied in the negative to the question whether he had been aware of the accommodation prices in the reserve. He also stated, in reply to a question from the applicant, that he had no financial claims towards the latter. 33 .     On 6 September 2019 the Sarny Court found the applicant guilty as charged. It imposed on him the maximum penalty: a fine in the amount of UAH 3,400 [10] and confiscation of the gift (its value was estimated at UAH   25,000). The judge held that the applicant had not provided any evidence proving that he had reimbursed N. for the accommodation. The related statements by P. and S. (see paragraph 31 above) were considered to be of little evidential value, since they had not eye-witnessed the final settlement between the applicant and N. Furthermore, the judge noted that P. and S. were the applicant’s friends. In relation to the applicant’s argument that the holiday house had been rented by several families, who had shared all the expenses, the Sarny Court noted as follows: “... no other persons, apart from [the applicant], had been customers of the services in question; they had been there at [the applicant’s] invitation.” 34 .     The applicant lodged an appeal. He submitted at the outset that there were reasons to question the impartiality of Judge R. The applicant reiterated in that connection the arguments, which he had advanced when seeking that judge’s withdrawal (see paragraph 28 above), and complained that those arguments had never been duly examined. The applicant also pointed out that Judge   R. had referred to him as “the offender” during the early stages of the proceedings. The applicant further complained in his appeal that the first-instance court had failed to explain why it had decided to attach more importance to N.’s vague and inconsistent statements, which were not supported by any evidence, than to his own version of the events, which had been corroborated by witnesses. The applicant also argued that the courts’ approach to the calculation of the “gift value” was arbitrary. He observed, in particular, that it had never been disputed that he had shared the rented holiday house with friends. Accordingly, he found it incomprehensible that the Sarny Court had presumed that he alone was to bear all the expenses. Furthermore, the applicant asserted that the de facto discount applied to the accommodation price had wrongly been disregarded. Lastly, he submitted, relying on his earlier arguments (see paragraph   30 above), that the prosecution authorities had had ample opportunity to put pressure on the key witness, N. The applicant reiterated his view that the proceedings in question were aimed at discrediting him in revenge for the investigations affecting the Prosecutor General and the Minister of the Interior. 35 .     On 13 December 2019 the Rivne Regional Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the Sarny Court and endorsed its reasoning. The appellate court did not comment on the applicant’s misgivings as to the impartiality of Judge   R. 36 .     Shortly thereafter the following information concerning the applicant was published in the publicly accessible online Unified state register of persons who have committed corruption or corruption-related offences (“the Corrupt Officials Register”): his surname, name and patronymic; his place of work and post at the time of the commission of the offence; and a   brief description of the constituent elements of the offence and the penalty [11] . Other relevant facts Reactions to the inclusion of the applicant’s name in the Corrupt Officials Register 37.     The outcome of the administrative-offence proceedings against the applicant and the subsequent inclusion of his name in the Corrupt Officials Register received extensive media coverage in Ukraine. People affected by NABU investigations often publicly questioned the legitimacy of those investigations and their findings by referring to the fact the NABU Director was on the Corrupt Officials Register himself. Mass media reports on the subsequent developments in the applicant’s career (see paragraphs 40-43 below) also often mentioned that fact. 38 .     Once the administrative-offence proceedings against the applicant were completed, the Minister of the Interior posted the following message on Twitter: “The NABU Director, a registered corrupt official, is trying to justify drinking without picking up the bill, blaming everybody else except himself. I’ve got used to pardoning fools. That’s the way to avoid their dirt...” 39.     In the Parliament, unsuccessful attempts were made to initiate legislative amendments with a view to including convictions in administrative-offence proceedings on the list of possible grounds for dismissal of the NABU director. Subsequent developments in the applicant’s career 40 .     The applicant held the post of the NABU Director until his term of office expired in April 2022. 41.     On 12 May 2022 he was appointed to the post of Deputy Head of the National Agency on Corruption Prevention (“the NACP”). 42.     On 3 June 2024 the applicant resigned from that post. 43 .     On 22 June 2024 he was appointed Deputy Director of the Defence Procurement Agency. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK Code of Administrative Offences 44 .     Article 9 defines an administrative offence as illegal and culpable action or inactivity infringing public order, citizens’ property, rights or freedoms, or established administrative procedures, and entailing administrative liability. It further stipulates that offences set out in this Code entail administrative liability if their nature does not warrant any criminal liability. 45 .     Paragraph 1 of Article 172-5 provides for a fine   in the amount of 100 to 200 times the non-taxable   minimum   income [12] , along with confiscation of the gift concerned, as the penalty for a breach of the legal restrictions on accepting gifts applicable to the persons listed in points 1 and 2 of section   3   §   1 of the Corruption Prevention Act. 46 .     Article 39 of the Code provides that persons convicted of an administrative offence are considered to have no convictions, provided that they commit no administrative offences in the year following the imposition of the penalty for the initial offence. Corruption Prevention Act 47.     As stipulated in section 1, a corruption-related offence entails criminal, administrative, disciplinary or civil liability. 48.     Points 1 and 2 of section 3 § 1 contain an extensive list of persons to whom the Act is applicable. It includes various categories of elected and appointed State officials, officials without civil-servant status holding posts in public-law legal entities or providing public services, certain categories of military officers and students, representatives of public unions or educational establishments, and members of tender or disciplinary commissions. 49 .     Section 23, in so far as relevant, read at the material time: Restrictions on accepting gifts “1. The persons listed in points 1 and 2 of section 3   §   1 of this Act shall be prohibited from claiming, requesting or accepting gifts, either directly or through other persons, for themselves or for their next of kin from legal entities or individuals: 1) in connection with their performance of activities relating to the fulfilment of functions of the State or local self-government; 2) if the person offering the gift is their subordinate. 2. The persons listed in points 1 and 2 of section 3   §   1 of this Act may accept gifts in compliance with the generally accepted notion of hospitality, except in the cases listed in § 1 of this section, if the cost of a single such gift does not exceed the minimum subsistence rate for an abled-bodied person applicable at the date of receipt of the gift or if the total cost of several such gifts accepted within a one-year period from the same person (or group of persons) does not exceed twice the minimum subsistence rate for an abled-bodied person at 1 January of the year [in question]. The above-mentioned restrictions on the value of gifts shall not extend to gifts which are: 1) made by a next of kin; 2) received in the form of publicly accessible discounts on goods or services, or publicly accessible prizes, gains or bonuses. ...” 50.     As stipulated in section 56, candidates for posts “entailing a high or particularly high level of responsibility” and posts with a high risk of corruption shall be subject to a special vetting process, which includes a check by the NACP as to whether the candidate’s name is in the Corrupt Officials Register. It appears that the subsequent assessment of the findings of the special vetting process is at the relevant authority’s discretion. The posts of NABU director and deputies, as well as NACP director and deputies, are listed among those “implying high or particularly high responsibilities”. 51 .     Section 59 provides that for persons found to be criminally, administratively, disciplinarily or civilly liable in respect of corruption or corruption-related offences, the following information is to be published in the Corrupt Officials Register: surname, name and patronymic; place of work and post at the time of the commission of the offence; constituent elements of the offence; and the penalty. That information is publicly accessible round the clock and at no cost. The NACP is the authority in charge of regulating the procedures for creating and maintaining the Corrupt Officials Register. 52 .     Following the Russian Federation’s armed attack on Ukraine on 24   February 2022, the NACP restricted access to the register. Subsequently, on 4 September 2023 public access to the register was restored, except in respect of the information about the place of work and post at the time of the commission of the offence. Public Service Act 53.     Section 19 § 2 (5) prohibits the employment in the public service of any person convicted of a corruption-related administrative offence in the three years after the related judicial decision takes effect. NABU Act 54.     Section 6 § 4 contains an exhaustive list of grounds for dismissal of the NABU director. While the final guilty verdict in criminal proceedings is among those grounds, no reference is made to a judicial decision finding the director guilty of an administrative offence. 2019 State Budget Act 55 .     As regards the reference amounts used for assessing gifts’ value under section 23 § 2 of the Corruption Prevention Act (see paragraph 49 above), section 7 of the 2019 State Budget Act set the minimum subsistence rate for an abled-bodied person in 2019 as follows: UAH 1,921 from 1 January 2019, UAH 2,007 from 1 July 2019, and UAH 2,102 from 1   December 2019. NACP Regulations on the Corrupt Officials Register 56.     Among the purposes of the register, section 3 of Chapter I (“General provisions”) indicates the following: “2) ensuring the implementation, according to the established procedure, of the special vetting process in respect of candidates for posts entailing a high or particularly high level of responsibility, as well as posts involving a considerable risk of corruption;” 57 .     Paragraph 8 of Chapter II (“Register creation and maintenance”) provides for the following grounds for the removal of information from the Corrupt Officials Register: 1)      a judicial ruling setting aside a [guilty] verdict; 2)      an acquittal; 3)      renewal of an expired time-limit for lodging an appeal; 4)      a decision setting aside the conviction for an administrative offence; 5)      a decision setting aside the finding of disciplinary liability; and 6)      the direct involvement by the person concerned in the measures for the defence of Ukraine, starting from 24 February 2022 and throughout the martial law period, in connection with the military aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine. National Police Act 58 .     The relevant part of section 1 reads as follows: “ 2. The activities of the [National Police of Ukraine] shall be directed and coordinated by the Cabinet of Ministers ... through the Minister of the Interior ... in accordance with the law.” THE LAW ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 59 .     The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the administrative-offence proceedings against him had been unfair and that the trial court had not been impartial. The relevant part of Article 6 § 1 reads: “In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.” Admissibility 60 .     The Government conceded that Article 6 § 1 under its criminal limb was applicable in the present case. They submitted, however, that the administrative-offence proceedings in question had had very little impact on the applicant’s professional or private life. The Government referred in that connection to the applicant’s successful continuation of his career in the field of anti-corruption even after being found guilty of a corruption-related administrative offence in the disputed proceedings. The Government therefore argued that the applicant had not suffered any significant disadvantage and that his complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention should be declared inadmissible under Article 35 §§ 3 (b) and 4. 61.     The applicant disagreed with the above objection. 62 .     Regard being had to the substance of the Government’s arguments, the Court considers that their objection should be interpreted as actually being directed against the applicability of Article 8 of the Convention and will consequently be examined under that head (see paragraphs   102-109 below; and, for the case-law to compare, see Wałęsa v. Poland , no. 50849/21, §   132, 23   November 2023). 63.     While the Government did not dispute the applicability of the criminal limb of Article 6 of the Convention in the present case, this question must be examined by the Court of its own motion, given that the applicability   ratione materiae of the Convention defines the scope of the Court’s jurisdiction (see, among many other authorities, Vegotex International S.A. v. Belgium [GC], no. 49812/09, § 59, 3   November 2022). 64.     The Court reiterates that the assessment of the applicability of Article   6 under its   criminal   limb is based on three criteria, commonly known as the “Engel criteria” (see Engel and Others v. the Netherlands , 8 June 1976, §   82, Series A no. 22). The first of these criteria is the legal classification of the offence under national law, the second is the very nature of the offence, and the third is the degree of severity of the penalty that the person concerned risks incurring. The second and third criteria are alternative, and not necessarily cumulative. This, however, does not exclude a cumulative approach where separate analysis of each criterion does not make it possible to reach a clear conclusion as to the existence of a criminal charge (see, among other authorities, Gestur Jónsson and Ragnar Halldór Hall v.   Iceland [GC], nos. 68273/14 and 68271/14, §§ 75-78, 22 December 2020). The Court has also pointed out on numerous occasions that the relative lack of seriousness of the penalty at stake cannot deprive an offence of its inherently criminal character (see Grosam v. the Czech Republic [GC], no.   19750/13, §   113, 1 June 2023, and the case-law references therein). 65.     Turning to the present case, the Court observes that the offence, of which the applicant was found guilty, was not classified as criminal under the national law. This however is not decisive. The Court notes that the relevant provisions of the Code of Administrative Offences and the Corruption Prevention Act, which were applied to the applicant, although not being addressed to the general public, concerned a vast range of professional groups and were aimed at sanctioning corruption-related wrongdoings too trivial to entail criminal liability (see paragraphs 44, 45 and 47-49 above). The Court also considers that the fine, which was imposed on the applicant in addition to the “gift confiscation” measure, was both deterrent and punitive. These considerations are sufficient for the Court to conclude that the proceedings at issue were   criminal   for the purposes of Article 6 of the Convention and that it therefore has jurisdiction ratione materiae   to examine the applicant’s related complaint. 66.     The Court further notes that this complaint is neither manifestly ill-founded nor inadmissible on any other grounds listed in Article   35 of the Convention. It must therefore be declared admissible. Merits The parties’ submissions (a)    The applicant 67.     The applicant submitted that the domestic courts had placed the burden of proof on him instead of on the prosecution and had failed to address the specific and pertinent arguments in his defence. He argued that no analysis had been performed of his detailed and consistent statements, which were corroborated by witness evidence, whereas the domestic courts had taken at face value the vague and inconsistent statements by N. Furthermore, the applicant contended that the vulnerability of N. to possible pressure from the prosecution authorities had never been addressed. 68.     The applicant also considered the courts’ approach to the calculation of the “gift value” arbitrary in two aspects. Firstly, he observed that it had never been disputed that he had shared the rented holiday house with friends. Accordingly, he found it incomprehensible that the courts had presumed that he alone was to bear all the expenses. Secondly, the applicant complained that disregarding the de facto discount had the potential to set a dangerous precedent, given that failure to disclose the existence of a discount to a recipient of goods or services might put that person in danger of facing an administrative-offence charge without even being aware of that. 69 .     The applicant also complained that Judge R. could not be regarded as impartial, given the real possibility for the prosecution authorities to put pressure on him within a parallel criminal investigation. The applicant noted that, from the very outset of the proceedings, the judge had manifested his bias against him by calling him “the offender”. (b)    The Government 70.     The Government argued that the applicant had had a fair trial in compliance with the Article 6 § 1 safeguards. They summarised the findings and reasoning given by the domestic courts and submitted that both parties had been duly heard and that extensive witness and other evidence had been examined. 71.     As regards the applicant’s allegation of the lack of impartiality of judge R., the Government submitted that it was unsubstantiated. They pointed out that, in any event, the findings reached by that judge had been verified and endorsed by the appellate court. The Court’s assessment (a)    Alleged unfairness of the trial (i)       General case-law principles 72.     It is not the Court’s function to deal with alleged errors of law or fact committed by the national courts unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention, for instance where they can be said to amount to “unfairness” in breach of Article 6 of the Convention.   While Article 6 guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence or the way in which evidence should be assessed, these being primarily matters for regulation by national law and the national courts.   In principle, issues such as the weight attached by the national courts to particular items of evidence or to findings or assessments submitted to them for consideration are not for the Court to review.   The Court should not act as a fourth-instance body and will therefore not question under Article 6 § 1 the national courts’ assessment, unless their findings or the manner in which they distributed the burden of proof can be regarded as arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable (see, for example, De   Tommaso v. Italy [GC], no. 43395/09, § 170, 23 February 2017, with further case-law references, and Grosam , cited above, §   132). 73.     According to the Court’s established case-law reflecting a principle linked to the proper administration of justice, judgments of courts and tribunals should adequately state the reasons on which they are based. The extent to which this duty to give reasons applies may vary according to the nature of the decision   and   must be determined in the light of the circumstances of the case (see García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, §   26, ECHR 1999-I). Without requiring a detailed answer to every argument advanced by the complainant, this obligation presupposes that parties to judicial proceedings can expect to receive a specific   and   explicit reply to the arguments which are decisive for the outcome of those proceedings (see,   among other authorities, Ruiz Torija v. Spain , 9 December 1994, §§   29-30, Series A no. 303-A). It must be clear from the decision that the essential issues of the case have been addressed (see Taxquet v. Belgium [GC], no.   926/05, §   91, ECHR 2010). In view of the principle that the Convention is intended to guarantee not rights that are   theoretical or illusory but rights that are practical   and   effective, the right to a fair trial cannot be seen as effective unless the requests   and   observations of the parties are truly “heard”, that is to say, properly examined by the tribunal (see Yüksel Yalçınkaya v.   Türkiye [GC], no. 15669/20, §   305   in fine , 26 September 2023, with further references). 74.     In determining whether the proceedings as a whole were fair, regard must also be had to whether the rights of the defence were respected. It must be examined in particular whether the applicant was given the opportunity to challenge the authenticity of the evidence and to oppose its use. In addition, the quality of the evidence must be taken into consideration, including whether the circumstances in which it was obtained cast doubt on its reliability or accuracy (see Bykov v. Russia [GC], no. 4378/02, §   90, 10   March 2009). 75.     The Court has also held, in cases concerning various issues under Article   6 of the Convention in connection with criminal proceedings, that the burden of proof is on the prosecution and that any doubt should benefit the accused (see Ajdarić v. Croatia , no. 20883/09, § 35, 13 December 2011, with further references). 76 .     Furthermore, the Court has held that inconsistencies between a witness’s own statements given at various times, as well as serious inconsistencies between different types of evidence produced by the prosecution, give rise to serious grounds for challenging the credibility of the witness and the probative value of his or her testimony; as such, this type of challenge constitutes an objection capable of influencing the assessment of the factual circumstances of the case based on that evidence   and, ultimately, the outcome of the trial (see   Huseyn   and   Others v.   Azerbaijan , nos.   35485/05 and   3 others, § 206, 26 July 2011). (ii)     Application of the above principles to the present case 77.     The Court notes that the applicant was found guilty of accepting a gift from N. primarily on the basis of the latter’s statements to the effect that he had borne expenses related to the applicant’s holidays. It is noteworthy that those statements were imprecise and lacked consistency. Although in his earliest deposition N. referred to five episodes of the applicant’s holidays in the P.S. reserve and alleged that he had spent about UAH 100,000 each time (see paragraph 16 above), he subsequently stated that the applicant had had brief holidays in that reserve only twice; he was also unable to specify his alleged related expenses (see paragraph 20 above). N. only replied in the positive to the investigator’s question whether he had paid UAH 3,000 and UAH   4,500 to rent a holiday house for the applicant and the applicant’s family and friends. N. alleged that he had never been reimbursed for those expenses (ibid.). 78.     The inconsistencies between N.’s own statements made at various times gave rise to serious grounds for challenging the credibility of that witness and the probative value of hi