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 } Published on 25 August 2025   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 54973/18 Oksana Stanislavivna SOLOMATINA against Ukraine lodged on 14 November 2018 communicated on 8 August 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns a dismissal of the applicant from the position of judge assistant on the grounds of her absence from work during her maternity leave. On 4 May 2005 the applicant started working as a judge assistant to judge   Z. at the Kyivskyi District Court of Kharkiv. In March 2012 the applicant gave birth to a child. Between 3 January 2012 and 28 March 2015 she was on maternity   leave until   her   child reached the age of   three years. Between 30 March 2015 and 28 March 2018, given that the child required home care, the applicant was on unpaid leave until the child reached the age of six years. On 29 March 2018 the applicant resumed her professional activity at the Kyivskyi District Court of Kharkiv. On the same day, judge Z., with whom she was working, applied to the Registrar of that court, asking to dismiss the applicant from her position of judge assistant on account of her six-years’ absence from work and her alleged lack of knowledge of legislation in force. Still on the same day the applicant was dismissed by order no. 02-02/48. The applicant brought administrative proceedings, seeking to quash order no.   02-02/48. She relied on Article 184 § 3 of the Labour Code that allowed dismissal of a single mother caring for a minor child only in a case of liquidation of an enterprise, institution or organisation where she worked and only with a guarantee of alternative employment. On 15 June 2018 the Kharkiv Circuit Administrative Court rejected the applicant’s claim as unsubstantiated. The court stated that the disputed legal relationships were governed by the provisions of the Labour Code, the Civil Service Act and the Regulation on Assistants to the Judges of General Jurisdiction (“the Regulation”), approved by decision no. 14 of the Council of Judges on 25 March 2011. The court referred to section 19 of the above- mentioned Regulation as lex specialis , which provided that a judge assistant may be dismissed from his/her position based on a reasoned application for dismissal by a judge with whom he/she worked. It found that the applicant’s dismissal had been lawful, given that the Regulation did not provide for any restrictions in relation to dismissal of single mothers caring for minor children. At the same time, the court did not explain why it considered that Article 184 § 3 of the Labour Code, relied on by the applicant, did not apply to the applicant or how it correlated with the provisions of the Regulation. The applicant appealed. On 6 August 2018 the Kharkiv Administrative Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the first-instance court. On 17 September 2018 the Supreme Court refused to open cassation proceedings. The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that the national courts failed to respond to her argument regarding the applicability of Article 184 § 3 of the Labour Code to her case. She further complains under Article 8 of the Convention that following her dismissal her private life was adversely affected, and under Article 14 of the Convention that she was dismissed because of having been absent from work during her maternity leave. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     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, were the judgments of the domestic courts in her case arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable (see   Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08, §   61, ECHR 2015; and Ramos Nunes de Carvalho e Sá v. Portugal [GC], nos.   55391/13 and 2 others, § 185, 6 November 2018, with further references)?   2.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for her private life, contrary to Article   8 of the Convention, by the decision to dismiss her from the position of judge assistant (see Oleksandr Volkov v. Ukraine , no.   21722/11, §§ 169-170, ECHR 2013)?   3.     Did the decision to dismiss the applicant from the post in question because of her absence from work during her maternity leave, amount to discrimination contrary to Article 14 read in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention? (see, mutatis mutandis, Jurčić v. Croatia , no. 54711/15, §§ 62-67, 4 February 2021)?