CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 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 } Published on 29 April 2024   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 82673/17 Nataliya Viktorivna MARTYNYUK against Ukraine lodged on 23 November 2017 communicated on 12 April 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant complains under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention about the alleged failure to enforce a final court decision ordering the High Council of Justice (“the HCJ” – Вища рада юстиції ) to re-consider a recommendation of the High Qualification Commission of Judges (“the HQCJ”) for the applicant’s appointment as a judge. On 5 November 2012 the HQCJ announced a selection of candidates for positions of judges, where the applicant decided to participate. Having been admitted to the selection, she passed a testing and underwent a half-year special training in the National School of Judges. In September 2013 the applicant passed a qualification exam and was put into a roster of the successful candidates. On 28 July 2016 the HQCJ announced a competition to vacant posts of local courts judges among the candidates from the roster. The applicant took part therein. On 15 September 2016 the HQCJ issued a recommendation for her appointment as a local court judge. On 22 September 2016 the HCJ refused to apply to the President with a submission for the applicant’s appointment to the judicial position. According to the HCJ, at the time of the submission of documents for the selection, that was on 19 November 2012, she had lacked fifteen days from a three-year professional experience, as required by the legislation in force. The applicant challenged that refusal before the courts. On 12 April 2017 the Supreme Court of Ukraine upheld the judgment of the Higher Administrative Court dated 23 November 2016 ordering the HCJ to re-consider the HQCJ’s recommendation for the applicant’s appointment to the judicial post. The courts reasoned that she could not be blamed for the premature submission of documents to the HQCJ since the date of such submission had been determined by the latter without any possibility to intervene. Moreover, at the time of the admission to the selection and the recommendation for the appointment, the applicant had had sufficient professional experience to be regarded as suitable for the judicial position. By a letter dated 8 June 2017 the newly established HCJ ( Вища рада правосуддя ) informed the applicant about the impossibility to enforce the final court decision because the new Law on the HCJ did not provide for the procedure of re-consideration of the HQCJ’s recommendation regarding the appointment of a judge. On 21 December 2017 the HCJ formally re-considered the HQCJ’s recommendation for the applicant’s appointment to the judicial position and returned the relevant materials to the HQCJ for the conduct of the repeated qualification exam, special check and competition to vacant posts of judges, as provided for by the new legislation. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Is Article 6 of the Convention under its civil head applicable to the court proceedings in the present case (see Juričić v.Croatia , no. 58222/09, §§ 51-58, 26 July 2011; Dzhidzheva-Trendafilova v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 12628/09, §§ 42-50, 9 October 2012; Tsanova-Gecheva v. Bulgaria , no. 43800/12, §§   83-87, 15 September 2015 ; Dolińska - Ficek and Ozimek v.   Poland , nos.   49868/19 and 57511/19, §§ 220-32, 8 November 2021; Gloveli v.   Georgia , no. 18952/18, §§ 34-53, 7 April 2022; and Stylianidis v.   Cyprus (dec.), no. 24269/18, §§ 37-46, 16 January 2024)? 2.     If yes, does the present case fall within the category of cases for which it is justified, in accordance with the Grand Chamber judgment in the case of   Burmych and Others v. Ukraine ((striking out) [GC], nos. 46852/13 et al., 12   October 2017) , to be struck out of the list of cases and transferred for processing to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe? 3.     If not, was the alleged failure of the High Council of Justice to enforce the final court decision, given in the applicant’s favour, compatible with her rights guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? Did the applicant have at her disposal an effective domestic remedy for her complaint under Article   6 § 1 of the Convention, as required by its Article 13?