Published on 6 January 2025
 
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 2582/21
Natalya Dmytrivna KVASNEVSKA
against Ukraine
lodged on 29 December 2020
communicated on 16 December 2024
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the dismissal of a judge of the High Specialised Court in Civil and Criminal Matters for a “significant disciplinary misdemeanour, gross or systematic disregard of duties, which is incompatible with the status of a judge or has shown incompatibility with the position held”.
On 31 July 2018 the applicant was dismissed from her judicial post by the High Council of Justice (“the HCJ” – Вища рада правосуддя) for lack of reasoning in a decision of 25 April 2017 adopted by a panel of three judges presided over by the applicant. By the decision of 25 April 2017 a cassation appeal of a convicted person had been granted in part, and she had been dispensed from serving a sentence. The decision had been upheld by the Supreme Court of Ukraine.
The applicant further challenged her dismissal before the newly established Supreme Court (“the SC”), but to no avail: her claim was rejected by final decisions of 7 February 2019 and of 10 September 2020. The SC noted that the HCJ had adduced grounds for its conclusions that the applicant had committed a significant disciplinary offence and that the HCJ had respected the principle of proportionality when imposing the disciplinary sanction on her. Some of the SC’s judges dissented, disagreeing with the overall outcome of the proceedings. In particular, they stated that the HCJ had failed to prove that the applicant had committed a disciplinary offence and that such a severe disciplinary measure as dismissal was in any event disproportionate.
The applicant complains that the proceedings regarding her dismissal were not compatible with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. Most notably, the applicant alleges that the SC only formally reviewed the HCJ’s decision on her dismissal, without addressing her specific arguments.
Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, the applicant complains that her private life was substantially affected by her dismissal which she considers unlawful and disproportionate.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1.  Was the applicant’s right to fair trial under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention infringed? In particular, has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to a reasoned court decision?
 
2.  Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for her private life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention, on account of her dismissal for a “significant disciplinary misdemeanour, gross or systematic disregard of duties, which is incompatible with the status of a judge or has shown incompatibility with the position held”? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention? In particular, was it proportionate to a legitimate aim sought to be achieved?