CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 octobre 2023

.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 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 06/11/2023   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 69358/13 Roman Yuryevich MARTYNOVSKIY against Ukraine lodged on 19 September 2013 communicated on 17 October 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the suspension of the applicant’s attorney’s license (Articles 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention). The applicant worked as an attorney in Sevastopol (Crimea, Ukraine). On 12 October 2012 he was elected as a member of the Higher Qualification Commission of Ukraine. On 7 December 2012 the Commission held its first meeting. The applicant had not been informed about the date of the meeting and did not attend the meeting. In February 2013 the applicant received a letter from the Disciplinary Commission of Zakarpattia Region Bar stating that a certain attorney complained that the applicant had failed to attend the meeting on 7 December 2012. On 17 April 2013, in the applicant’s absence, the Disciplinary Commission of the Zakarpattia Region Bar suspended the applicant’s attorney’s licence for six months for his failure to participate at the meeting of 7 December 2012. The applicant appealed against the decision of 17 April 2013 to the Higher Disciplinary Commission of the Zakarpattia Bar. On 16 May 2013 this body upheld the decision of 17 April 2013. On 10 June 2013 the applicant appealed to the Disciplinary Commission of the Ukrainian Bar. During the hearing of the Higher Commission on 22 July 2016 the rapporteur in the applicant’s case suggested to quash the decisions of 17   April and 16 May 2013. However, out of 30 members of the Commission only 11   voted in favour of this proposal, 6 voted against it, and two abstained. The other twelve members of the Commission did not participate in the voting. According to the Rules of the Commission, in case where a proposal was not upheld by 16 or more members, the proposal is considered rejected. In this manner on 22 July 2016 the applicant’s appeal was rejected and the decisions of 17 April and 16 May 2013 remained valid. On 5 October 2016 the applicant appealed to the Kyiv District Administrative Court, which on 8 April 2021 upheld the previous decisions against the applicant. The applicant’s appeals where rejected (final decision of the Supreme Court of 9 December 2021). The applicant complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention that he did not have access to court and an effective remedy because his appeals against the decision of 17 April 2013 did not have a suspensive effect, so the decision of 17 April 2013 was executed before he could effectively appeal against it. The applicant also complained about the length of the proceedings under Article 6. The applicant complained under Article 8 of the Convention that because of the decision of 17 April 2013 he was deprived of the opportunity to exercise his profession. He complained under Article 13 that he did not have a domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 8. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have access to a court for the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention?   2.   Was the length of the proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article   6 §   1 of the Convention?   3.   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? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article   8 §   2?   4.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 8, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?