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 Application no. 46521/18 Viktor Ivanovych TATKOV against Ukraine lodged on 26 September 2018 communicated on 21 November 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the dismissal of a judge of the High Commercial Court for a “violation of incompatibility requirements”. In September 2016, following a proposal of the High Council of Justice (“the old HCJ” – Вища рада юстиції ), the applicant was dismissed by Parliament under the 2014 Government Cleansing Act (“the Lustration Act”) based on his membership in the old HCJ in the period between 25   February 2010 and 22 February 2014 (see Polyakh and Others v. Ukraine , nos.   58812/15 and 4 others, § 73, 17 October 2019). This also banned him from employment in the civil service until the end of 2024 and put his name in a publicly accessible Lustration Register (ibid., §§ 74 and 78). That dismissal decision was later set aside by the courts due to the breach of a procedure for its adoption. After the 2016 major judicial reform conducted in Ukraine, the old HCJ was replaced by a newly established HCJ (“the new HCJ” – Вища рада правосуддя ), which, having new competence to take a final decision on the dismissal of judges, dismissed the applicant again in September 2019 based on the same proposal of the old HCJ. The applicant then challenged this dismissal before the Supreme Court (“the SC”), which was also reorganised as a result of the aforementioned judicial reform, but eventually on 21   January 2021 it ruled against him. The applicant complains that the proceedings regarding his dismissal were not compatible with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. In particular, he alleges that his dismissal case was not considered by an independent and impartial tribunal since one of the new HCJ’s members had already expressed his position while proposing to dismiss the applicant for the first time. The applicant also complains that the review of his case by the SC was insufficient to remedy deficiencies on the part of the new HCJ, such as the alleged lack of reasoning in its decision and breach of a procedure by the latter. Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, the applicant complains that his dismissal and the measures applied to him under the Lustration Act breached his right to respect for his private life. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Do the applicant’s complaints disclose a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular: (a)     Was the High Council of Justice ( Вища рада правосуддя ) dealing with the applicant’s case independent and impartial? (b)     Was the scope of the review of the applicant’s case by the Supreme Court sufficient to address his complaints?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention? If so, did that interference comply with Article 8 § 2 of the Convention (see Samsin v. Ukraine , no. 38977/19, §§ 50-59, 14 October 2021)?