CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 25 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 16 December 2024   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 51769/20 Valeriya Valeriyivna ANANKO against Ukraine lodged on 14 November 2020 communicated on 25 November 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of unfair hearing of her case concerning her non-appointment to a post of a judge. In 2012 the applicant applied for a position of a judge. She passed all necessary procedures and was put into a roster of successful candidates. On 26 May 2016 the High Council of Justice (“the HCJ” – Вища рада юстиції ) lodged a submission with the President for the appointment of the applicant, as well as other candidates, as a local court judge for an initial period of five years (that submission was received by the President on 4 August 2016). In August-September 2016 the President appointed most of the persons listed in the HCJ’s submission of 26 May 2016, with some exceptions including the applicant. On 30 September 2016 a new legislation entered into force pursuant to which the President lost its power to appoint judges for an initial five-year term. In accordance with the legislative amendments, case files submitted by the HCJ before 30 September 2016 but not examined by the President were to be remitted to a newly established HCJ ( Вища рада правосуддя ); new principles and mechanisms were introduced in the procedure of selection of judges who were to be appointed by the President upon a submission of the new HCJ for an indefinite term. As it appears from the available documents, the applicant was then required to undergo a new competition for a position of a judge in compliance with the new procedure. On 25 July 2017 the applicant challenged the selective appointments by the President in the courts. By a judgment of 10 June 2019, upheld on appeal on 27 February 2020, the Supreme Court (“the SC”) dismissed the applicant’s claim in full. It held that the President had not complied with a thirty-day time-limit for the applicant’s appointment as a judge as provided for by domestic law in force at that time, but found no appearance of unlawfulness in his inactivity because of the ongoing full-scale judicial reform and the fact that the President had received submissions from the HCJ in respect of more than 300 persons and its administration had not managed to proceed with all the case files until 30 September 2016. Some of the SC’s judges attached their dissenting opinion to the final court decision, where they stated that the President had unlawfully restricted the applicant’s right to access to judicial profession. The applicant alleges that the SC failed to provide adequate reasoning while finding against her, in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Was the applicant’s right to fair trial under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention infringed? In particular, has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to a reasoned court decision (see Pronina v. Ukraine , no. 63566/00, § 25, 18   July 2006; Benderskiy v. Ukraine , no. 22750/02, §§ 42-47, 15 November 2007; and Bogatova v. Ukraine , no. 5231/04, §§ 18 and 19, 7 October 2010)?