Communicated on 7 September 2020 Published on 28 September 2020

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 38977/19 Igor Leonovych SAMSIN against Ukraine lodged on 18 July 2019

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The applicant, at the time a Supreme Court judge, was the chairman of the High Judicial Qualifications Commission during the presidency of Viktor Yanukovych, in 2010 to 2014. In July 2016 he attempted to resign from the Supreme Court. However, without examining his resignation application, the High Council of Justice dismissed him from the position of a Supreme Court judge under the 2014 Government Cleansing (Lustration) Act based on his membership in the Qualifications Commission in Mr Yanukovych ’ s times (see Polyakh and Others v. Ukraine , nos. 58812/15 and 4 others , §§ 73 and 74, 17 October 2019) . This deprived him of the benefits associated with judicial retirement, banned him from employment in the civil service until the end of 2024 and put his name in a publicly accessible Lustration Register. He challenged his dismissal but eventually on 31 January 2019 the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court ruled against him.

Under Article 8 the applicant complained that his dismissal and the measures applied to him under the Government Cleansing Act had breached his right to respect for his private life.

Under Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention the applicant complained that he had been discriminated vis-à-vis persons who had not occupied high-ranking positions during the presidency of Mr Yanukovych and vis-à-vis another judge (S.) who had been in a similar situation as the applicant but had been allowed to resign.

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? If so, did that interference comply with Article 8 § 2?

2. Has the applicant suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of his rights under Article 8 of the Convention, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention?

In particular, has the applicant been subjected to a difference in treatment?

If so, did that difference in treatment pursue a legitimate aim and did it have a reasonable justification?