CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 février 2025

.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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 3 March 2025   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 26622/18 Andriy Arkadiyovych UZDEMYR against Ukraine lodged on 29 May 2018 communicated on 13 February 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns several aspects of court proceedings initiated by the applicant, a former prosecutor, challenging his dismissal for a disciplinary offence. The court of first instance and the court of appeal ruled in the applicant’s favour, and the court of appeal held, in particular, that the statutory time-limit for imposing disciplinary sanctions on the applicant had expired. On 31 January 2018 the Supreme Court, upon an appeal on points of law by the prosecutor’s office, overturned the rulings of the lower courts and dismissed the applicant’s claim. In doing so, it apparently did not address the matter of the aforesaid statutory time-limit. Relying on Article 6 of the Convention, the applicant complains that he was not informed of the proceedings before the Supreme Court and was not served with a copy of the appeal on points of law submitted by the prosecutor’s office. The applicant also complains about the lack of public hearing during the proceedings before the Supreme Court and that the ruling of the Supreme Court was not sufficiently reasoned, failing to address the issue of the allegedly expired statutory time-limit.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Was there a breach of the applicant’s right to a fair hearing, as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular: 1.     Was the principle of equality of arms, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, respected during the proceedings before the Supreme Court in the applicant’s case (see Lazarenko and Others v. Ukraine , nos. 70329/12 and 5 others, §§ 36-37, 27 June 2017)? 2.     Was the absence of public hearing before the Supreme Court compatible with the requirements of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Gankin and Others v. Russia , nos. 2430/06 and 3   others, §§ 25-26, 31 May 2016)? 3.     Did the Supreme Court provide sufficient reasons for its ruling of 31   January 2018 and was this ruling “arbitrary” and/or “manifestly unreasonable” (see Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08, §§ 61-64, ECHR 2015; Ramos Nunes de Carvalho e Sá v. Portugal [GC], nos. 55391/13 and 2 others, § 185, 6 November 2018, with further references)?