CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 août 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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 8 September 2025   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 31780/20 Sofiya Viktorivna DANYLIV against Ukraine and 2 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 19 August 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES The applications concern a qualification assessment of the applicants, judges, as provided for by the 2016 constitutional amendments regarding a reform of the domestic judiciary. Under those amendments, all judges appointed to office for a five-year period by the President of Ukraine or elected for an indefinite term by Parliament before the entry into force of the amendments had to pass an assessment of their suitability to sit as judges. The refusal to do so and the failure in this assessment was the grounds for dismissal of a judge. The conduct of such assessment was entrusted to the High Qualification Commission of Judges (“the HQCJ”). The applicants in applications nos. 31780/20 and 42202/21 were appointed to judicial office for a five-year period. Following the expiry of that period in July 2017 (application no.   31780/20) and in May 2018 (application no.   42202/21), they could no longer exercise judicial functions but remained staff of the respective courts where they used to work and continued receiving remuneration, albeit lower, and other benefits as judges. In February 2018 the applicants were required to undergo the assessment. They successfully passed some of its stages, but the assessment was suspended from November 2019 to June   2023 as the HQCJ did not exercise its functions due to understaffing. After the HQCJ renewed its activities, in January-May 2024 the applicants ultimately underwent the assessment. As a result, the applicant in application no.   31780/20 was appointed as a judge for an indefinite term; the applicant in application no.   42202/21 was dismissed from judicial office as she did not succeed in the assessment. The applicant in application no.   1542/22 was elected as a judge for an indefinite term in December 2004. He was required to undergo the assessment in April 2018. The applicant managed to pass some of its stages, but the assessment was suspended between November 2019 and June 2023. According to the applicant, his assessment is still ongoing. He nevertheless continued to administer justice and to receive a lower judicial remuneration. The applicants complain under Article 8 of the Convention that the prolonged procedure for their assessment violated their right to respect for their private lives in that that they were prevented from exercising judicial functions (applications nos.   31780/20 and 42202/21) or were unable to obtain promotion in judicial office (application no.   1542/22). The situation complained of also allegedly put the applicants in the state of uncertainty and precluded them from performing other paid work (except for research, teaching or creative activities). QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Is Article 8 of the Convention applicable to the facts of which the applicants complain?   2.     If so, has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to respect for their private lives, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention?       APPENDIX No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality 1. 31780/20 Danyliv v.   Ukraine 07/07/2020 Sofiya Viktorivna DANYLIV 1982 Bila Tserkva Ukrainian 2. 42202/21 Otrosh v.   Ukraine 10/08/2021 Inna Mykhaylivna OTROSH 1987 Kyiv Ukrainian 3. 1542/22 Narizhnyy v.   Ukraine 21/12/2021 Sergiy Yuriyovych NARIZHNYY 1978 Kyiv Ukrainian