CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 novembre 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 8 December 2025   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 5833/22 Kyrylo Oleksandrovych KORMUSHYN against Ukraine lodged on 21 January 2022 communicated on 18 November 2025 STATEMENT OF FACTS The application concerns the continued inability of the applicant to sit as a local court judge despite the quashing of the decisions on his dismissal. The applicant complains under Articles   6 §   1,   8 and   13 of the Convention. In December 2010, upon a proposal of the High Council of Justice (“the old HCJ” – Вища рада юстиції ), the applicant was dismissed by Parliament for a “breach of oath”. The proposal and the parliamentary resolution were subsequently set aside by the courts (and the disciplinary proceedings referred back to an initial stage) in the context of the review of the applicant’s case after the delivery of the Court’s judgment in Kulykov and Others v. Ukraine (no.   5114/09 and 17   others, 19   January 2017), in which he was one of the applicants (the final domestic court decision was dated 21   June 2018). Following the 2016 major judicial reform undertaken in Ukraine, the old HCJ was replaced by a newly established HCJ (“the new HCJ” – Вища рада правосуддя ), which obtained new competence to take decisions on the appointment and dismissal of judges. In August 2018 the applicant instituted proceedings against the president of a local court where he used to administer justice, seeking to be reinstated at the post of judge. The courts refused, reasoning that there were no grounds for his reinstatement given, in particular, that the new HCJ was the body vested with power to appoint judges and, therefore, it was for the new HCJ to establish a special mechanism for the reinstatement of judges (the final court decision in those proceedings was dated 29   July 2021). In April 2020 the new HCJ dismissed the applicant again on the basis of the materials collected by the old HCJ. That decision was quashed by the courts for breach of the procedure for its delivery (the final court decision in those proceedings was dated 1   July 2021). The disciplinary proceedings against the applicant, initially opened in December 2010 and leading to his dismissal, were ultimately closed as time barred in May 2024. In its decision on the matter, the new HCJ indicated that there were no legal obstacles for the applicant to sit as a judge of the local court where he used to exercise judicial functions before his dismissal. As of the time of the latest communication by the applicant to the Court in June 2025, he had not been reinstated at the post of judge. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life, within the meaning of Article   8 §   1 of the Convention, on account of his continued inability to exercise judicial functions after quashing of decisions on his dismissal? If so, was the interference in accordance with the law, did it pursue a legitimate aim and was it “necessary in a democratic society” pursuant to Article   8 §   2 of the Convention?   2.     Has the applicant had at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article   8 of the Convention, as required by its Article   13?   3.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to have the final domestic decisions in his favour effectively enforced, as required by Article   6 §   1 of the Convention?