CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 22 novembre 2021

.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 } Published on 13 December 2021   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 474/21 Stanislav Volodymyrovych SHEVCHUK against Ukraine lodged on 28 December 2020 communicated on 22 November 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the dismissal of the applicant from the posts of Judge and President of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine (“the CCU”) as a result of disciplinary proceedings against him. The disciplinary proceedings consisted of examination of the matter by the CCU Standing committee and then the plenary CCU. The applicant complains under Article 6   §   1 of the Convention that the CCU was not “an independent and impartial tribunal established by law” because (i) the CCU failed to follow the rules when dealing with the applicant’s dismissal, notably there was no ruling by the plenary CCU authorising the CCU Standing Committee to deal with the disciplinary matter and the applicant was not duly informed of those proceedings; (ii) certain CCU judges, who had requested the disciplinary proceedings against the applicant or had been witnesses in relation to the disciplinary charges, later participated in the deliberations on the case by the CCU. The applicant argues under Article 6   §   1 that the CCU Standing Committee and the plenary CCU failed to ensure equality of arms as no chance was provided to the applicant to defend himself in person or through his lawyer and refute the disciplinary charges. The applicant further complains under Article 6   §   1 and Article 13 that the domestic administrative courts violated his right of access to a court because they refused to exercise their jurisdiction to review the CCU decision on the applicant’s dismissal. The applicant complains that his dismissal violated Article 8, given that it had a serious impact on his private life, and Article 10 because it was a measure of retaliation in response to the public comments he had made in March 2019 in connection with the election of the President of Ukraine. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Is Article 6 §   1 of the Convention applicable to the proceedings before the Constitutional Court of Ukraine and the domestic courts in the present case? If so:   (a)     With regard to the proceedings before the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, was the applicant’s case treated by: (i)     an independent and impartial tribunal as required by Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? (ii)     a tribunal established by law as required by Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? (iii)     did the Constitutional Court of Ukraine ensure the principle of equality of arms in the disciplinary proceedings against the applicant, as required by Article   6 §   1 of the Convention?   (b)     With regard to the proceedings before the domestic courts, has there been a violation of the applicant’s right of access to a court under Article 6   §   1 of the Convention in connection with the domestic administrative courts’ refusal to review the applicant’s dismissal?   2.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for private life under Article 8 of the Convention in connection with his dismissal?   3.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression within the meaning of Article   10 §   1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article   10 §   2?