CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 30 mars 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } Published on 19 April 2021   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 53548/17 Stepan Vasylyovych CHEREVKO against Ukraine lodged on 12 July 2017 communicated on 30 March 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE On 11 September 2013 the applicant concluded a three-year military service contract with the National Guard of Ukraine. Although he expressed his wish to terminate his service upon the contract’s expiry in September 2016, it was prolonged for an indefinite period by a unilateral decision of his employer of 9   September 2016. In substantiation of that decision, the National Guard of Ukraine referred to the existence of a “special period” in Ukraine since the announcement of a partial mobilisation on several occasions in 2014 and 2015 (in relation to the armed conflict in the Eastern Ukraine and the loss by the Ukrainian Government of its control over Crimea). The applicant challenged the contract extension before the administrative courts. He observed that under the applicable legal provisions a “special period” started running from the moment of mobilisation and lasted during the mobilisation period. Given that the partial mobilisations announced by presidential decrees in 2014 and 2015 had been of fixed duration and had already expired, the applicant argued that there were no legal grounds for extending his military service contract contrary to his will. The Vinnytsya Circuit Administrative Court on 4 November 2016, the Vinnytsya Administrative Court of Appeal on 8 December 2016 and the Higher Administrative Court on 12 January 2017 found against the applicant. They concluded that, although the existing legal provisions did not provide for a procedure of the termination of a “special period”, their reference to demobilisation implied that such a period was to be regarded as terminated only when a demobilisation announcement was made. In the absence of a formal presidential decree on demobilisation, the “special period” was therefore regarded as ongoing. Without relying on any Convention provisions, the applicant complains about being unlawfully forced to continue his military service for an indefinite period. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Is Article 4 § 2 of the Convention applicable to the circumstances of the present case?   2.     Has there been a violation of Article 4 § 2 of the Convention on account of the applicant’s continued military service, contrary to his will, beyond the three-year period stipulated in the contract of 11 September 2013?   3.     Do the circumstances of the case disclose a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his private life under Article 8 of the Convention?