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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 23 November 2020 Published on 14 December 2020   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 18350/20 Vasyl Mykolayovych BILYY against Ukraine lodged on 8 April 2020 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant served as a trainee and as a counterintelligence officer in the KGB in 1986 to 1991. Since 1993 he served in the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU). In 2018 he was dismissed from his position in the SBU’s counterintelligence cybersecurity department pursuant to the Government Cleansing (Lustration) Act on the grounds that he had served in the KGB (see Polyakh and Others v. Ukraine , nos. 58812/15 and 4 others, § 75, 17   October 2019). In a final decision, on 5 December 2019, the Supreme Court upheld the lower courts’ decisions rejecting the applicant’s appeal against his dismissal. He complains that the application of the Government Cleansing Act to him was in breach of Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No.   12. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention? If so, did that interference comply with Article 8 § 2?   2.     Has the applicant suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of his rights under Article 8 of the Convention, in breach of Article 14 of the Convention, or of a “right set forth by law”; in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 12? In particular, has the applicant been subjected to a difference in treatment, as compared to individuals who did not serve in the KGB? If so, did that difference in treatment pursue a legitimate aim and did it have a reasonable justification (compare, for example, Sidabras and Džiautas v.   Lithuania , nos. 55480/00 and 59330/00, ECHR 2004 ‑ VIII, Sõro v.   Estonia , no. 22588/08, 3 September 2015, with Naidin   v.   Romania , no.   38162/07, 21 October 2014)?