CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 juillet 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sEC2CB098 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s65E06E64 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } Published on 25 August 2025   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 48418/17 Leonid Sergiyovych MAZHAR against Ukraine and 3 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 3 July 2025 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applications concern court proceedings instituted by the applicants following their failure to succeed in a recruitment competition for the new Supreme Court (“the SC”), which had been set up as a result of a major judicial reform undertaken in Ukraine in 2016. The applicant in application no. 48418/17, a practising lawyer, was not admitted to that competition by the High Qualification Commission of Judges (“the HQCJ”) as he failed to prove that he had been practising law for at least ten years. The applicant challenged his non-admission to the competition, but the High Administrative Court and the Supreme Court of Ukraine, which were abolished after the SC began to operate (see Gumenyuk and Others v.   Ukraine , no. 11423/19, § 11, 22 July 2021), dismissed his claim. The applicants in applications nos. 46483/18, 1814/19 and 18208/20, a legal scholar and two judges, were excluded from that competition on different stages by the HQCJ since they failed to prove their suitability to sit as the SC judges. The applicants challenged their exclusion from the competition, but the SC found against them. The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that their cases were not adjudicated by an independent and impartial tribunal because the matter was examined by judges who had participated in the same competition for the SC as the applicants. They further complain that the courts failed to ensure sufficient judicial review of the HQCJ’s measures and did not provide adequate reasons for their decisions. The applicant in application no.   1814/19 also complains under Article 13 of the Convention that she had no effective domestic remedies in question.       QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES REGARDING ALL APPLICATIONS Were the applicants’ disputes examined in accordance with the requirements of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular: (i)     Did the courts exercise full jurisdiction and provide sufficient review of the decisions challenged by the applicants (see Tsanova-Gecheva v.   Bulgaria , no. 43800/12, §§ 90-105, 15 September 2015)? (ii)     Did the proceedings violate the applicants’ right to be heard by an independent and impartial tribunal under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? ADDITIONAL QUESTION TO THE PARTIES REGARDING APPLICATION NO. 48418/17 Did the applicant raise before the relevant domestic courts, as required under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, the issue of alleged lack of independence and impartiality, that he brings before the Court?       APPENDIX No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality 1. 48418/17 Mazhar v.   Ukraine 27/06/2017 Leonid Sergiyovych MAZHAR 1975 Kyiv Ukrainian 2. 46483/18 Guyvan v.   Ukraine 16/09/2018 Petro Dmytrovych GUYVAN 1958 Poltava Ukrainian 3. 1814/19 Ivanenko v.   Ukraine 12/12/2018 Yana Leonidivna IVANENKO 1976 Kyiv Ukrainian 4. 18208/20 Krotyuk v.   Ukraine 06/04/2020 Oleksandr Volodymyrovych KROTYUK 1981 Kyiv Ukrainian