Here’s a detailed analysis of the ECHR decision in Golovchuk v. Ukraine:
1. Essence of the decision in 3-5 sentences:
– The case concerns unlawful interference with a judge’s exercise of judicial office after her court (High Administrative Court) was terminated due to judicial reform in Ukraine. The Court found violations of Article 8 (right to private life) and Article 6 § 1 (right to access to court) of the Convention because the judge was prevented from exercising her judicial functions for 6 years without proper legal basis and couldn’t effectively challenge this situation. The Court emphasized that while states can reform judiciary, they must respect judicial independence and the principle of irremovability of judges.
2. Structure and main provisions:
– The decision examines two main complaints: violation of right to private life (Article 8) and lack of access to court (Article 6 §1)
– The Court distinguished this case from previous Gumenyuk case as it dealt with judges of abolished courts rather than renamed Supreme Court
– Key finding: domestic authorities failed to provide the judge with new judicial assignment despite her having confirmed suitability to serve as judge
– The Court awarded €5,000 in non-pecuniary damages and €3,000 for legal costs
3. Most important provisions for practical use:
– The Court confirmed that preventing judges from exercising judicial functions without formal dismissal constitutes interference with private life under Article 8
– Judges whose courts are abolished have right to new judicial assignment in line with principle of irremovability
– States must provide effective mechanisms for transfer of judges from abolished courts to maintain judicial independence
– Lack of access to court to challenge prevention from exercising judicial duties violates Article 6 §1
– The decision creates important precedent for protection of judicial independence during reforms
The decision is particularly significant for Ukraine as it sets standards for treatment of judges during judicial reforms and emphasizes need to respect judicial independence and provide proper legal mechanisms for judges’ transfer between courts.
