CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 mars 2026

.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 } Published on 7 April 2026   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 18730/19 Vyacheslav Sergiyovych USHAKOV against Ukraine lodged on 27 March 2019 communicated on 18 March 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant, a practising lawyer, was disbarred on 27 June 2017 following disciplinary proceedings initiated on the basis of a joint complaint lodged by his former clients, who were linked by family or business ties. They alleged that the applicant had fraudulently misappropriated considerable sums of money (exceeding USD 200,000), failed to comply with his contractual obligations, acted contrary to his clients’ interests, claimed excessive fees without prior agreement, threatened his clients, and disclosed information protected by lawyer-client confidentiality. The Qualification and Disciplinary Commission of the Kharkiv Regional Bar Association (“the Commission”) found it established that the applicant had lodged a procedural motion contrary to his client’s will after the latter had verbally terminated the legal assistance contract between them. The Commission further concluded that one of the contractual clauses – namely, prohibiting the client from admitting any State authorities to his premises without the applicant’s presence and providing for a fine in the event of non ‑ compliance – was contrary to the law. It also observed that the legal assistance contracts did not specify the fees payable to the applicant, while the amounts claimed by him under that head were unreasonably high. The allegations that the applicant had fraudulently misappropriated his clients’ funds and had been threatening them were not examined as falling to be established within a criminal investigation. As regards the allegation about the disclosure of confidential information, it was dismissed as belated. It appears that neither the Commission nor the administrative courts examined the possibility of imposing a less severe disciplinary sanction on the applicant. The applicant’s disbarment occurred against the background of ongoing proceedings initiated by him against his former clients before the commercial courts, in which he sought remuneration for legal services allegedly provided under their agreement. According to publicly available information from the online State Register of Judicial Decisions, the applicant ultimately lost those proceedings. Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, the applicant complains that his disbarment was arbitrary and amounted to a breach of his right to respect for his private life. 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 disbarment?   2.     If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of   Article 8   § 2?