CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 juin 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s1DE04B9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } Published on 7 July 2025   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 7727/19 Yuriy Leonidovych OSTAPOVETS against Ukraine lodged on 24 January 2019 communicated on 18 June 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s dismissal from military service on disciplinary grounds based on the results of positive blood-alcohol tests. In June 2017 the applicant, while off duty, was admitted to a military hospital with head trauma sustained in a street fight. While he remained unconscious, hospital staff took the applicant’s blood samples and performed alcohol tests. According to the applicant, the results of these tests were disclosed to his command without his knowledge and subsequently served as the basis for his dismissal. Seeking his reinstatement, the applicant instituted administrative proceedings against the administration of his military unit, arguing, inter alia , that there had been no grounds for his dismissal and that the blood-test results should be excluded from the case file. By a ruling of the first-instance court, subsequently upheld on appeal, his claim was dismissed. On 24 July 2018 the Supreme Court refused to open cassation proceedings. Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the blood tests were performed without his prior consent, that their results were unlawfully disclosed to his military unit, and that his dismissal, based on those results, was unlawful and disproportionate. He further alleges under Article 6 of the Convention that the domestic proceedings concerning his dismissal were unfair. The applicant also relies on Article 13 of the Convention.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life under Article 8 § 1 of the Convention, on account of (i) the taking of the applicant’s blood samples for alcohol testing while he was unconscious, (ii) the disclosure of the test results to his military command without the applicant’s consent, and (iii) the applicant’s dismissal from military service based on these results?   If so, was that interference in accordance with the law, necessary and proportionate in terms of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, M.A.K. and R.K. v. the United Kingdom , nos. 45901/05 and 40146/06, §§ 75-80, 23 March 2010; Oleksandr Volkov v. Ukraine , no.   21722/11, §§ 165-68, ECHR 2013; Y.Y. v. Russia , no. 40378/06, §   39, 23   February 2016; M.K. v. Ukraine , no. 24867/13, §§ 34-37, 15 September 2022; D.H. and Others v. North Macedonia , no. 44033/17, §   49, 18 July 2023)?   2.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the Convention on account of the use against him in the domestic proceedings of the results of the impugned blood alcohol tests (see   López   Ribalda and Others v. Spain [GC], nos. 1874/13 and 8567/13, §§ 149-52, 17 October 2019; Florindo de Almeida Vasconcelos Gramaxo v.   Portugal , no. 26968/16, §§ 130-40, 13   December 2022)?   3.     In respect of the remainder of the applicant’s complaints under Article   6 of the Convention, namely the alleged breach of the principle of equality of arms, the failure to examine his arguments and the lack of access to the Supreme Court, as well as of his complaint under Article 13 of the Convention, do they disclose a violation of these provisions, as alleged by the applicant?