CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 janvier 2025

.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 3 February 2025   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 13605/23 Volodymyr Kimovych MUKHOPADOV against Ukraine lodged on 17 March 2023 communicated on 16 January 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s dismissal from a State-owned forestry allegedly in retaliation for his refusal to obey the unlawful orders of a director and for the submission of his criminal complaint against the director to the prosecutor’s office about the coercion to perform unlawful actions by his superior, following which a criminal case against the director was opened. At a trade union meeting, the director, having mentioned the applicant’s criminal complaint and the pending criminal case against him, encouraged the members of the trade union to vote for the applicant’s dismissal or wait “until they were all put in prison”. Forty-two out of the fifty-five members voted for the applicant’s dismissal and subsequently he was dismissed. The applicant initiated civil proceedings, seeking his reinstatement, to be awarded compensation and to have it established that he had been discriminated against on the grounds of his application or intention to apply to the national courts or other bodies in order to defend his rights. The domestic courts reinstated the applicant and awarded him compensation for the unlawful dismissal but found that his discrimination claim had been unsubstantiated, dismissed it and refused his related compensation claim. The applicant complains of unlawful interference with his right to respect for his private life and of discrimination. He relies on Article 8 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 14, and on Article 1 of Protocol   No.   12 to the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Can the applicant   claim to be a victim   of violations of Articles 8 and   10 of the Convention, within the meaning of Article 34?   2.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his private life in relation to his dismissal on the grounds of his refusal to obey the unlawful orders of his superior and the submission of a respective criminal complaint to the prosecutor’s office, contrary to Article   8 of the Convention?   3.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression, contrary to Article   10 of the Convention? In particular, has there been a violation of his right to impart information in view of the precept of the rule of law, allowing the citizens to notify competent State officials about the conduct of public servants which to them appears irregular or unlawful (see Siryk v. Ukraine , no. 6428/07, § 42, 31 March 2011)?   4.     Has the applicant suffered discrimination on the grounds of his refusal to obey the allegedly unlawful orders of the director and for the submission of his criminal complaint to the prosecutor’s office about the coercion to perform the unlawful actions, contrary to Article   14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article   8, and contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 10?