CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 septembre 2023

.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 } Published on 9 October 2023   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 7269/17 Oksana Oleksandrivna LUCHKO against Ukraine lodged on 27 December 2016 communicated on 18 September 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case mainly concerns the alleged lack of impartiality of the appellate court in the administrative offence proceedings against the applicant (Article   6 § 1 of the Convention). The applicant was a judge at the material time. On 23 September 2016 the Ivano-Frankivsk City Court (“the Ivano-Frankivsk Court”), sitting as a single-judge formation, found her guilty of having acted in a situation of a conflict of interest (an administrative offence) on account of having delivered some procedural rulings in proceedings involving a company headed by her father. By the same ruling, the Ivano-Frankivsk Court discontinued the administrative offence proceedings against the applicant, given that the statutory limitation period for imposing penalty for that type of administrative offences had expired. The examination of the applicant’s was entrusted to judge Sh. in the Ivano ‑ Frankivsk Regional Court of Appeal. Referring to the fact that judge Sh. had been a claimant in administrative proceedings dealt with by the applicant in her capacity of a judge and that she had rejected his claim, the applicant questioned his impartiality and requested his recusal. Judge Sh. rejected her request as unfounded, having stated that he had lodged his claim as a citizen but not as a judge. On 28 October 2016, sitting as a single-judge formation, he found against the applicant. As known from public sources, the applicant was subsequently disciplined and resigned from her post of a judge. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was Article 6 of the Convention applicable to the administrative offence proceedings against the applicant? If so:   2.     Could the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Court of Appeal be regarded as an “impartial tribunal” within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Morice v. France [GC], no. 29369/10, §§ 73-78, ECHR 2015, and Sigríður Elín Sigfúsdóttir v. Iceland , no. 41382/17, §§ 45-57, 25 February 2020)?