CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 30 avril 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 } Published on 19 May 2025   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 60011/17 Volodymyr Mykolayovych ANTONYUK against Ukraine lodged on 4 August 2017 communicated on 30 April 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns administrative-offence proceedings against the applicant, as a result of which he was found guilty of having filed with a delay an income tax declaration following his dismissal from the civil service, even though the applicable legal provisions allegedly did not establish any time-limit for that type of situations. The applicant submits, in particular, that the absence of any such time-limit was confirmed by the Higher Specialised Court for Civil and Criminal Matters in its information letter addressed to the appellate courts on 22 May 2017 (shortly after the completion of the administrative-offence proceedings in the applicant’s case). He also cites various relevant case-law of the domestic courts. Relying on Article 3 of the Convention, the applicant complains that his allegedly arbitrary conviction in the administrative-offence proceedings and the subsequent inclusion of his name in the Corrupt Officials Register was humiliating for him and had a negative impact on his further career in the civil service. This complaint may raise an issue under Article 8 of the Convention. Furthermore, relying of Articles 6 and 7 of the Convention, the applicant complains that he was found guilty of having breached a time-limit which was not legally established. This complaint may rather be examined under Article   7 of the Convention only. The applicant also complains that there was a breach of his property rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the fine imposed on him (UAH 850) and the obligation to pay the court fees (UAH   275.60). Lastly, he complains under Article 13 of the Convention that he did not have effective domestic remedies in respect of the above complaints. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant’s conviction in the administrative-offence proceedings compatible with the requirements of Article 7 of the Convention?   2.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his private life, contrary to Article   8 of the Convention?   3. Has there been a violation of Article   1   of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention on account of the fine imposed on the applicant and the obligation to pay the court fees?   4. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his Convention complaints, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?