CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 août 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 } .s65E06E64 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } Published on 25 August 2025   FIFTH SECTION Applications nos. 4784/20 and 51900/21 Maryna Yuriyivna MINDARYOVA against Ukraine and Svitlana Mykolayivna SALAYCHUK against Ukraine lodged on 10 December 2019 and 13 October 2021 respectively communicated on 8 August 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES The applications concern measures applied to the applicants, former judges of the Chervonozavodskyi District Court of Kharkiv (“the local court”), under the 2014 Government Cleansing (Lustration) Act (“the Lustration Act”). Following the procedure established by the Lustration Act, the local court’s president and the State Judicial Administration made “lustration” findings requiring that the applicants be banned from access to the civil service for ten years (see Polyakh and Others v. Ukraine , nos. 58812/15 and 4   others, § 75, 17 October 2019) for having imposed administrative arrests on individuals who had participated in mass protests in Kharkiv on 19   February 2014 and had been later amnestied by the Law of 21 February 2014. The above “lustration” findings were published on the local court’s website. The applicants unsuccessfully challenged those findings before administrative courts. The final decisions were rendered by the Supreme Court on 27 August 2019 and 14 April 2021. The applicants complain under Article 8 of the Convention that the measures applied to them under the Lustration Act, including the publication of the “lustration” findings, violated their right to respect for their private lives. The applicant in application no. 4784/20 also complains under Article   6 §   1 of the Convention about the unfairness of administrative procedure leading to the “lustration” findings, and the lack of reasoning and disregarding her arguments in the ensuing proceedings before the administrative courts. The applicant in application no. 51900/21 also complains under Article   6 §   1 of the Convention about the breach of the principle of legal certainty in that the Supreme Court set aside binding decisions of lower courts in her favour after it had accepted, without any adequate justification, a belated cassation appeal lodged by the State Judicial Administration. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES REGARDING BOTH APPLICATIONS Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to respect for their private lives, within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention? In particular, (a)     did the measures applied to the applicants under the Lustration Act comply with this Article (see Polyakh and Others , cited above, §§ 262-324, and Samsin v. Ukraine , no. 38977/19, §§ 50-59, 14 October 2021)? (b)     was the publication of the “lustration” findings on the local court’s website compatible with the requirements of this Article (see Karajanov v.   the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no. 2229/15, §§ 70-77, 6   April 2017)? QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES REGARDING APPLICATION NO. 51900/21 Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of her civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the principle of legal certainty breached by the Supreme Court’s decision to renew the time-limit for lodging a belated cassation appeal by the respondent and to quash binding decisions of lower courts in the applicant’s favour (see Ponomaryov v. Ukraine , no. 3236/03, §§ 40-42, 3   April 2008, and Ustimenko v. Ukraine , no. 32053/13, §§ 46-54, 29 October 2015)?