CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 avril 2024

.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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } Published on 22 April 2024   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 37358/21 Mariya Andriyivna MARKUSH against Ukraine lodged on 15 July 2021 communicated on 4 April 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the dismissal of a judge of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine by Parliament in February 2014. More specifically, the applicant was dismissed from her position for “breach of judicial oath” in connection with her participation in the delivery of the Constitutional Court’s judgment of 30 September 2010. By the same resolution, Parliament also dismissed the Constitutional Court’s judges who had been appointed under Parliament’s quota (see Ovcharenko and Kolos v. Ukraine , nos.   27276/15 and   33692/15, §§   16-20, 12 January 2023, and Golovin v. Ukraine , no.   47052/18, §   6, 13 July 2023). The applicant further challenged her dismissal before higher ordinary courts, but to no avail. The relevant domestic law, international materials and comparative-law material can be found in Ovcharenko and Kolos (cited above, §§   33-73). Referring to Article 6 of the Convention, the applicant complains, inter alia , that the right to a reasoned court decision was not respected in her case. Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, the applicant also complains that she was dismissed unlawfully and that the right to respect for her private life was violated.       QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant’s right to fair trial under Article 6 of the Convention infringed? In particular, has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to a reasoned judgment as guaranteed by Article 6   §   1 of the Convention (see Ovcharenko and Kolos v. Ukraine , nos. 27276/15 and 33692/15, §§   120-27, 12   January 2023, and Golovin v. Ukraine , no. 47052/18, §§   32-36, 13 July 2023)? 2.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for her private life within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law (see Ovcharenko and Kolos v.   Ukraine , nos. 27276/15 and 33692/15, §§   93-110, 12   January 2023, and Golovin v. Ukraine , no. 47052/18, §§   23-31, 13 July 2023)?