CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 29 janvier 2019

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 13 September 2017 and 29 January 2019     FOURTH SECTION Application no. 48460/16 Kęstutis BUTKUS against Lithuania lodged on 16 August 2016   The facts and complaints in this application have been summarised in the Court’s Statement of facts and Questions to the parties, which is available in HUDOC. QUESTION Is Article   8 of the Convention applicable to the applicant’s complaint about the permanent ban on him working as a restructuring administrator? In particular, did the impugned ban affect his “private life” to such a degree as to attain the threshold of severity under Article 8 (see Denisov v. Ukraine [GC], no.   76639/11, §§   115-17, 25   September 2018)?