Published on 19 September 2022

FIFTH SECTION

Applications nos. 64612/11 and 20952/12 Yuriy Bogdan Romanovych SHUKHEVYCH against Ukraine lodged on 9 October 2011 and 31 January 2012 respectively communicated on 21 February 2022

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES

The applications concern two different sets of court proceedings to which the applicant was a party – civil proceedings concerning defamatory statements regarding his late father, Mr Roman Shukhevych, finally decided by the Higher Specialised Court for Civil and Criminal Matters on 1 June 2011 (application no. 64612/11), and administrative proceedings initiated by an individual, S., who challenged the lawfulness of the highest State award of Hero of Ukraine to the applicant’s late father, finally decided by the Higher Administrative Court on 2 August 2011 (application no. 20952/12).

In so far as application no. 64612/11 is concerned, the applicant complains, relying mainly on Article 8 of the Convention, that the civil courts unfairly refused to protect his right to respect for his private and family life violated by the publication of the allegedly untrue and defamatory statements concerning his late father.

In so far as application no. 20952/12 is concerned, the applicant complains, relying mainly on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, that the administrative proceedings at issue were unfair on several grounds, including because of the alleged inconsistency and insufficient reasoning of the relevant court decisions, which had negative implications for the applicant’s private rights and interests emanating from the award of honorary title of Hero of Ukraine to his late father. In that case he also complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 that he suffered discriminatory treatment on account of the manner in which the administrative proceedings were conducted.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Application no. 64612/11

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?

In particular, did the outcome of the proceedings instituted by the applicant affect his right to respect for his private life?

2. If so, was the applicant provided with the requisite protection of his related interests, as safeguarded by that Article?

2. Application no. 20952/12

1. Was Article 6 § 1 of the Convention under its civil head applicable to the proceedings concerning the action by S.? In particular, did they concern the determination of the applicant’s civil rights or obligations within the meaning of that provision?

2. If so, did the applicant have a fair hearing in those proceedings by an independent and impartial tribunal, having regard to, inter alia, his complaints about the alleged inconsistency and insufficient reasoning of the court decisions in his case?