KULYKOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE - 5114/09 (Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) : Court (Fifth Section)) [2017] ECHR 69 (19 January 2017)

KULYKOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE - 5114/09 (Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) : Court (Fifth Section)) [2017] ECHR 69 (19 January 2017)

The Court found that the procedure before the High Council of Justice and Parliament disclosed structural shortcomings compromising independence and impartiality, and subsequent judicial review did not remedy these defects. The dismissals constituted unlawful interference with private life, failing the 'quality of law' requirement under Article 8. There were violations of both Article 6 § 1 and Article 8 of the Convention in respect of all applicants.

Citation
[2017] ECHR 69
Parties
Applicants: Kulykov and Others; Respondent: Ukraine
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
19 January 2017
Procedural Posture
Joined Applications Under Article 34 ECHR / Final Judgment
Outcome
Violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 8 of the Convention; complaints admissible; just satisfaction awarded; remainder of claims dismissed.
Legal Topics
Judicial Independence, Impartial Tribunal, Right to Private Life, Dismissal of Judges, Fair Hearing
Human Rights Constitutional Law Administrative Law Judicial Independence Impartial Tribunal Right to Private Life Dismissal of Judges Fair Hearing

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kulykov and Others

Applicants

Ukraine

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Joined Applications Under Article 34 ECHR / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the dismissal proceedings against the applicants violated Article 6 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 8 (right to respect for private life) of the Convention
  2. 2 Whether the domestic bodies lacked independence and impartiality
  3. 3 Whether the dismissals constituted unlawful interference with private life

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the procedure before the High Council of Justice and Parliament disclosed structural shortcomings compromising independence and impartiality, and subsequent judicial review did not remedy these defects. The dismissals constituted unlawful interference with private life, failing the 'quality of law' requirement under Article 8. There were violations of both Article 6 § 1 and Article 8 of the Convention in respect of all applicants.

Court Disposition

Violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 8 of the Convention; complaints admissible; just satisfaction awarded; remainder of claims dismissed.

Orders

  • Respondent State to pay applicants amounts stated in Appendix II within three months, plus any tax, converted to local currency at settlement date.
  • Amounts for costs and expenses to be paid into bank accounts of applicants' representatives.