CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 14 mars 2018

.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 } .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 14 March 2018   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 22699/16 Pavlo Petrovych BOGUTSKYY against Ukraine and 4 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. Information about this was published in the publicly accessible Lustration Registry. They challenged their dismissals before administrative courts, but in February–May 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 and publication of information about them in the Lustration Registry 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 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; Ivanovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no.   29908/11, §§   117-22, 21 January 2016; and Anchev v. Bulgaria (dec.), nos. 38334/08 and 68242/16, §§ 129 and 130, 5 December 2017)?   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?   Question specific to applications nos. 25171/16, 45465/16, 48350/16 and   69526/16   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; Ivanovski , cited above, §§   181-88; and Anchev , cited above, §§   92 ‑ 116)?   Question specific to applications nos. 25171/16 and 45465/16   5.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their 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 Nationality Represented by   22699/16 09/04/2016 Pavlo Petrovych BOGUTSKYY 03/04/1963 Lviv Ukrainian       25171/16 22/04/2016 Oleksandr Stepanovych DANEVYCH 27/02/1957 Kyiv Ukrainian   A. Samoylenko   45465/16 29/07/2016 Andiy Mykolayovych Padalka 17/03/1979 Kyiv Ukrainian   G. Avramenko   48350/16 09/08/2016 Igor Oleksiyovych PROTSENKO 04/02/1972 Kyiv Ukrainian       69526/16 16/11/2016 Volodymyr Vasylyovych POBEREZHNYY 13/09/1975 Lutsk Ukrainian