CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 23 novembre 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sE485344B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:28.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .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 } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .sAC521AF { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sD8E76205 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Communicated on 23 November 2020 Published on 14 December 2020   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 9988/16 Sergiy Vadymovych KUZNETSOV against Ukraine and 6 other applications (see list appended) STATEMENT OF FACTS A list of the applicants, who are Ukrainian nationals, is set out in the appendix. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. The applicants were dismissed from their positions in the civil service under the 2014 Government Cleansing (Lustration) Act on the grounds that they had occupied certain positions in the civil service at the time Viktor Yanukovych was President of Ukraine. Information about this dismissal was published in the publicly accessible Lustration Registry. The applicants challenged their dismissal before the administrative courts, but the proceedings were suspended awaiting the Constitutional Court’s opinion on the constitutionality of the Act. According to the most recent information submitted by the applicants, their cases remain suspended before the first-instance courts. Relevant domestic law and practice The Supreme Court, in its decisions of 3 June (case no.   817/3431/14), 9   July (case no. 817/3708/14), 28 September (case no.   800/527/14) and 30   September 2020 (case no.   820/18060/14), allowed the claims of former civil servants challenging their dismissal under the Government Cleansing Act, declared their dismissal unlawful, ordered their reinstatement and, where appropriate, awarded them back wages. In doing so, the Supreme Court applied the Court’s findings in Polyakh and Others v. Ukraine (nos.   58812/15 and 4 others, 17 October 2019). COMPLAINTS The applicants complain that measures taken against them under the Government Cleansing Act were contrary to Article   8 of the Convention and that the ongoing failure to examine their claims at the domestic level breached their right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time. In the latter respect their invoked Article   6 § 1 and/or Article 13 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 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? In particular: (i)     in view of the Supreme Court’s decisions of 3   June (case   no.   817/3431/14), 9 July (case no. 817/3708/14), 28 September (case no.   800/527/14) and 30 September 2020 (case no.   820/18060/14), applying the Court’s findings in Polyakh and Others v. Ukraine (nos.   58812/15 and   4   others, 17 October 2019) to the cases of individuals dismissed under the Government Cleansing Act, and any other relevant developments in the domestic case-law, is it open to the applicants to request resumption of proceedings in their cases and resolution of their cases in light of the Court’s above-mentioned judgment? (ii)     do the circumstances of the present cases justify an exception to the rule (to the extent it is relevant in their respective cases) that assessment of whether domestic remedies have been exhausted is normally carried out with reference to the date on which the application was lodged (see, for example and mutatis mutandis , Brusco v. Italy (dec.), no.   69789/01, 6   September 2001, Muratović v. Serbia (dec.), no.   41698/06, 21   March 2017, and Beshiri and Others v. Albania (dec.), no.   29026/06 and 11   others, § 177, 17 March 2020, with further references)?   2.     Has the length of the administrative proceedings in the present cases been in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article   6 §   1 of the Convention?   3.     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?     APPENDIX No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Represented by 1 9988/16 Kuznetsov v.   Ukraine 10/12/2015 Sergiy Vadymovych KUZNETSOV 1971 Chernigiv Gennadiy Mykolayovych AVRAMENKO 2 41238/16 Pidgaynyy v.   Ukraine 07/07/2016 Oleg Stanislavovych PIDGAYNYY 1965 Chernigiv Gennadiy Mykolayovych AVRAMENKO 3 16082/17 Sukonkin v.   Ukraine 17/02/2017 Eduard Vasylyovych SUKONKIN 1970 Zaporiizzya   4 20554/18 Roman v. Ukraine 24/04/2018 Vitaliy Ivanovych ROMAN 1973 Beregove Igor Mykolayovych VASYLIUK 5 44703/19 Shepelev v.   Ukraine 15/08/2019 Oleksandr Viktorovych SHEPELEV 1971 Kropyvnytskyy Gennadiy Mykolayovych AVRAMENKO 6 9200/20 Semenov v.   Ukraine 08/02/2020 Vadym Vyacheslavovych SEMENOV 1977 Cherkasy   7 34182/20 Portnov v.   Ukraine 04/08/2020 Mykhaylo Volodymyrovych PORTNOV 1967 Slobozhanske Dnipropetrovsk region Valeriy Volodymyrovych KUSHNIR