CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 21 novembre 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 9 December 2024   FIFTH SECTION Applications nos. 38599/18 and 52154/21 Elli Anatoliyivna RADCHENKO against Ukraine and Denys Oleksandrovych VLASENKO against Ukraine lodged on 2 August 2018 and 12 October 2021 respectively communicated on 21 November 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES The applications concern the dismissal of judges of local courts in 2018 for a “significant disciplinary misdemeanour, gross or systematic disregard of duties, which is incompatible with the status of a judge or has shown incompatibility with the position held”, which consisted of alleged grave breaches of procedural rules while delivering court decisions in property-related disputes (the latter decisions being subsequently set aside on appeal). The above disciplinary sanction was imposed by the High Council of Justice (“the HCJ” – Вища рада правосуддя ) which was set up by virtue of the 2016 major judicial reform instead of the old HCJ ( Вища рада юстиції ). The applicants further unsuccessfully challenged their dismissal before the Supreme Court (“the SC”) which was also reorganised as a result of the aforementioned reform. Some of the SC’s judges attached their dissenting opinions to the final court decisions, where they stated, inter alia , about the disproportionality of such a severe disciplinary measure. The applicants complain that the proceedings regarding their dismissal were incompatible with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. In particular, they allege that their dismissal cases were not considered by an independent and impartial tribunal given that one of the HCJ’s members had already expressed his position on the applicant’s dismissal being involved twice on various stages of the dismissal procedure (application no. 52154/21), and the fact that the SC’s judges were under the jurisdiction of the HCJ, so they could be subject to disciplinary proceedings by the latter (both applications). The applicants also complain that the court decisions in their cases were not properly reasoned and substantiated. Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, the applicants complain that their private lives were substantially affected by their dismissal which they consider disproportional. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Do the applicants’ complaints disclose a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular: (a)     Were the High Council of Justice ( Вища рада правосуддя ) and the Supreme Court dealing with the applicants’ cases independent and impartial? (b)     Was the scope of the review of the applicants’ cases by the Supreme Court sufficient to address their complaints?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their private lives, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention, on account of their dismissal for a “significant disciplinary misdemeanour, gross or systematic disregard of duties, which is incompatible with the status of a judge or has shown incompatibility with the position held”? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 §   2 of the Convention? In particular, was it proportional to a legitimate aim sought to be achieved?