Published on 4 May 2026
FIFTH SECTION
Applications nos. 25851/23 and 30044/23
Oksana Vasylivna BUKHTOYAROVA against Ukraine
and Svitlana Anatoliyivna MYSENKO against Ukraine
lodged on 2 June 2023 and 13 July 2023 respectively
communicated on 13 April 2026
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applications concern the Supreme Court’s decisions to terminate proceedings brought by the applicants challenging actions of the National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP). In 2021 the applicants, attorneys and members of the regional disciplinary commissions of the Ukrainian National Bar Association (UNBA), received written requests of the NACP to submit their annual asset declarations, which explicitly warned them of administrative and criminal liability for non-compliance. Arguing that the imposition of an obligation to declare assets on members of the UNBA disciplinary bodies was not prescribed by law, the applicants, on various dates, lodged administrative claims against NACP.
In application no. 25851/23, the claim was initially upheld by the first‑instance and appellate courts. However, on 2 February 2023 the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court terminated the proceedings regarding the applicant’s claim, holding that the NACP’s request was merely informative in nature and did not give rise to any legal obligations or affect her rights.
The applicant’s claim in application no. 30044/23 was initially dismissed by the courts of two levels of jurisdiction. On 15 March 2023 the Supreme Court terminated the proceedings, citing the Grand Chamber’s decision in application no. 25851/23.
In 2025 the applicant in application no. 25851/23 received a new request from the NACP to submit her asset declaration, with which she refused to comply. Subsequently, following a private complaint, a criminal investigation was initiated against her in that regard.
The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of the lack of access to a court because their claims were not determined on the merits. They further complain under Article 8 of the Convention that the actions of the NACP constituted an unlawful interference with their private life, creating pressure and uncertainty in the exercise of their legal profession.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Is Article 6 § 1 of the Convention applicable, under its civil limb, to the present cases? In particular, having regard to the relevant legislation and the case-law of the domestic courts at the time, was there a legal obligation for the applicants to submit asset declarations, and were the sanctions for non‑compliance foreseeable to them? Was this obligation of a civil nature? (see, mutatis mutandis, Evers v. Germany, no. 17895/14, §§ 66-68, 28 May 2020)?
2. Assuming that Article 6 § 1 is applicable, did the applicants have access to a court for the determination of their civil rights and obligations (see, for example, Golder v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1975, §§ 28-36, Series A no. 18)?
3. Did the matters complained of entail an interference with the rights of the applicants protected by Article 8 of the Convention? If so, was the interference lawful (see, mutatis mutandis, Vig v. Hungary, no. 59648/13, §§ 51-58, 14 January 2021)?