| Applicant name | GOLOVIN |
| Applicant type | Natural person |
| Number of applicants | 1 |
| Country | Ukraine |
| Application no. | 47052/18 |
| Date | 13/07/2023 |
| Judges | Georges Ravarani, President, Lado Chanturia, Carlo Ranzoni, María Elósegui, Mattias Guyomar, Kateřina Šimáčková, Mykola Gnatovskyy, |
| Institution | Court |
| Type | Judgment |
| Outcome Art. 8 | Violation |
| Reason | Quality of law |
| Type of privacy | Private life; Economic privacy; procedual privacy |
| Keywords | Dismissal office |
| Facts of the case | A judge of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine is dismissed from office, which the Ukrainian supreme court had found legitimate. Applicant invokes Articles 6, 8 and 18 ECHR. |
| Analysis | The ECtHR find that the supreme court, while making a general statement about the constitutional court being primarily a political body, did not comment on how that applied specifically in the applicant’s case, given that he had been dismissed specifically for breach of his judicial oath. In a previous case, the ECtHR had already concluded that the legal framework concerning constitutional court judges was not reasonably foreseeable. As the legal framework in issue is identical in the present case, the Court concludes that the framework in question lacked the requisite clarity and foreseeability and that the domestic decisions applying it in the applicant’s case were not sufficiently reasoned. Thus, there had been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention, and Article 6 ECHR. The Court does not find it necessary to examine the complaint under Article 13 ECHR, and finds that the complaint under Article 18 ECHR is manifestly ill-founded. |
| Other Article violation? | Yes, article 6 ECHR; No Article 13 ECHR. |
| Damage awarded | Holds that the finding of a violation is sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicant and dismisses the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction. |
| Documents | Judgment |