Published on 5 February 2024

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 54738/13 Andriy Volodymyrovych KOZAK against Ukraine and 2 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 16 January 2024

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES

The applications were lodged by three former judges of the domestic courts. Disciplinary proceedings were brought against them resulting in their dismissal from the posts of judges for “breach of oath” in 2013 and 2016. Their dismissal was based on the relevant submissions of the High Council of Justice ( Вища рада юстиції ) and confirmed by the Parliament or the President who was competent to deliver final decisions in this respect at the material time. The applicants further unsuccessfully challenged their dismissal before the Higher Administrative Court and/or the Supreme Court.

Domestic law governing the procedure for dismissal of judges for “breach of oath”, international and comparative-law material can be found in Oleksandr Volkov v. Ukraine (no. 21722/11, §§ 56-82, ECHR 2013) and Kulykov and Others v. Ukraine (nos. 5114/09 and 17 others, §§ 107-116, 19 January 2017).

Referring to Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicants complain that their dismissal procedure was unfair and not compatible with the Convention. More specifically, they allege that their dismissal was not considered by an independent and impartial tribunal and that the respective judicial review was insufficient to rectify the above shortcoming. Relying expressly or in substance on Article 8 of the Convention, the applicants also complain that their private lives were substantially affected by their dismissal for “breach of oath”, which lacked the “quality of law” as required in the Court’s case ‑ law under Article 8 of the Convention.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Do the applicants’ complaints disclose a violation of Article 6 of the Convention? In particular, were the domestic authorities dealing with the applicants’ dismissal independent and impartial, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Oleksandr Volkov v. Ukraine , no. 21722/11, §§ 109 ‑ 131, ECHR 2013 and Kulykov and Others v. Ukraine , nos. 5114/09 and 17 others, §§ 135-137, 19 January 2017)?

2. Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their private lives within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention on account of their dismissal for “breach of oath”? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention (see Oleksandr Volkov v. Ukraine , no. 21722/11, §§ 173-187, ECHR 2013 and Kulykov and Others v. Ukraine , nos. 5114/09 and 17 others, §§ 138 and 139, 19 January 2017)?

APPENDIX

No.

Application no.

Case name

Lodged on

Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality

1.

54738/13

Kozak v. Ukraine

15/08/2013

Andriy Volodymyrovych KOZAK 1977 Kryvyy Rig Ukrainian

2.

33635/14

Gryshchenko v. Ukraine

17/04/2014

Volodymyr Mykhaylovych GRYSHCHENKO 1975 Dnipro Ukrainian

3.

13080/17

Chudovskyy v. Ukraine

10/02/2017

Denys

Olegovych CHUDOVSKYY 1980 Kharkiv Ukrainian