ZAKUTNIY AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 82574/17
Volodymyr Ivanovych ZAKUTNIY against Ukraine
and 10 other applications

(see appended table)

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 11 July 2024 as a Committee composed of:

 Carlo Ranzoni, President,
 Mārtiņš Mits,
 María Elósegui, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The list of applicants is set out in the appended table.

The applicants’ complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings were communicated to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”). In some of the applications, other complaints based on the same facts were also communicated.

THE LAW

Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.

In the present applications, having examined all the material before it, the Court considers that for the reasons stated below, the complaints about the alleged lack of impartiality of the tribunal in the impugned administrative offence proceedings are inadmissible.

In particular, the Court notes that the impartiality of the domestic courts was not called into question under either the subjective or the objective tests and that the applicants did not point to any specific circumstances which could cause the Court to doubt the domestic courts’ impartiality (see Figurka v. Ukraine, no. 28232/22, § 30-44, 16 November 2023).

Consequently, it cannot be considered that the domestic courts took the role of a prosecuting party or were put in a position requiring them to take the role of a prosecuting party, thereby undermining their impartiality or the fairness of the proceedings.

In view of the above, the Court finds that these complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

In applications nos. 347/20, 39421/21 and 48847/21 the applicants raised other complaints under Article 6 of the Convention.

The Court has examined these complaints and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.

It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Decides to join the applications;

Declares the applications inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 5 September 2024.

 Viktoriya Maradudina Carlo Ranzoni
 Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention

(lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings)