CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 30 mai 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s8F670191 { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; list-style-position:inside } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold }   Communicated on 30 May 2017       FOURTH SECTION Application no. 58812/15 Vyacheslav Borisovich POLYAKH against Ukraine and two other applications (see list appended) SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern dismissal of civil servants under the 2014 Government Cleansing (Lustration) Act on the mere grounds that they had occupied certain positions in the civil service in the period from February 2010 to February 2014. They challenged their dismissals before administrative courts, but in December 2014 - January 2015 the courts suspended proceedings on their claims awaiting the Constitutional Court’s opinion on the constitutionality of the Act. The applicants’ cases have remained suspended before the first-instance courts ever since. The applicants allege, in general, that their dismissal was contrary to Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention and that the ongoing failure to examine their claims at the domestic level breached their rights under Articles 6 and   13 of the Convention. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES General questions (for all applications)   1.     Have the applicants exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, in respect of their complaints under Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention concerning their dismissal? In particular, do the claims brought by the applicants before the domestic administrative courts constitute such a remedy having regard to the suspension of their examination and the requirement, recognised in the Court’s case-law, that an effective remedy must operate without excessive delay (see, for example, McFarlane v. Ireland [GC], no.   31333/06, § 108, 10   September 2010; and Bellizzi v. Malta , no. 46575/09, §   38, 21 June 2011)?   2. Is Article 6 of the Convention applicable to the proceedings in the applicants’ cases under its civil or criminal head (see, for example and mutatis mutandis , Matyjek v. Poland (dec.), no. 38184/03, §§ 49-58, 30   May 2006; Oleksandr Volkov v. Ukraine , no. 21722/11, §§ 87-95, ECHR 2013; and Ivanovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no.   29908/11, §§   117-22, 21 January 2016)?   3.     Has there been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention, in particular on account of the domestic courts’ ongoing failure to examine the applicants’ claims due to the suspension of proceedings in their cases until delivery of the Constitutional Court’s decision concerning constitutionality of the Lustration Act and alleged lack of progress in the latter proceedings? In particular, have the applicants’ right of access to court (see, mutatis mutandis , Multiplex v. Croatia , no. 58112/00, §§ 53-55, 10 July 2003) and their right to a trial within reasonable time (see, for example and mutatis mutandis , Trebovc v. Slovenia , no. 42863/02, §§ 15-17, 1 June 2006, and Svetlana Orlova v. Russia , no. 4487/04, §§ 41 and 51, 30 July 2009) been breached?   4. Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their private and family life within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention? If so, did that interference comply with Article 8 §   2 (see, for example and mutatis mutandis , Ādamsons v. Latvia , no. 3669/03, § 116, 24   June 2008; Naidin v. Romania , no. 38162/07, §§ 37-42 and 46-57, 21   October 2014; Sõro v. Estonia , no. 22588/08, §§ 56-64, 3 September 2015; and Ivanovski , cited above, §§   181-88)?   Question specific to application no. 53217/16   Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaints under Articles 6 and 8 as required by Article 13 of the Convention?     No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant Date of birth Place of residence Represented by   58812/15 21/11/2015 Vyacheslav Borisovich POLYAKH 25/05/1970 Kyiv   Denis Vyacheslavovich RABOMIZO   53217/16 25/08/2016 Dmytro Viktorovych BASALAYEV 22/04/1976 Mykolayiv   Gennadiy Mykolayovych AVRAMENKO   59099/16 03/10/2016 Oleksandr Oleksiyovych YAS 20/10/1954 Chernigiv