CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 15 janvier 2026

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 2 February 2026   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 51538/19 Iryna Volodymyrivna KARPENKO against Ukraine lodged on 21 September 2019 communicated on 15 January 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s dismissal from the police service on 6 November 2015 on the grounds of redundancy, at the time when she was on maternity leave until her child reached the age of three, carried out as part of the 2015 police reform. The decisions of the Kyiv Circuit Administrative Court of 8 November 2016 and 30 June 2020, ordering the applicant’s reinstatement to service, were not enforced because the applicant was dismissed again for the same reason. The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that the national courts issued unenforceable decisions by ordering her reinstatement to a position that had been made redundant. She further complains, under Article 8 of the Convention, that her dismissal amounted to an interference with her private and professional life and, under Article 13 of the Convention, that she did not have effective remedies in that respect. The applicant further complains, relying in substance on Article 14 of the Convention, that women, who were on maternity leave at the time when the police reform took place, were massively dismissed.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention as regards the non-enforcement   of the domestic courts’ judgments adopted in the applicant’s favour (see Ryaska v. Ukraine , no. 3339/23, § 44, 10 October 2024)?   2.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for her private life, contrary to Article   8 of the Convention, by the decision to dismiss her during her maternity leave on the grounds of redundancy (see Oleksandr   Volkov v. Ukraine , no.   21722/11, §§ 169-170, ECHR 2013)?   3.     Did the applicant have at her disposal an effective domestic remedy for her Convention complaints, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?   4.     Did the decision to dismiss the applicant from her post during her maternity leave amount to discrimination contrary to Article 14 read in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Jurčić v. Croatia , no. 54711/15, §§ 62-67, 4 February 2021)?