1. **Subject of the Dispute:** A judge’s challenge against a decision by the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine (HQCJ) declaring the judge unfit for the position held, in a situation where the submission for dismissal was not considered by the High Council of Justice (HCJ) due to the judge reaching the mandatory retirement age.
2. **Court’s Arguments:**
– The court of first instance erroneously closed the proceedings, assuming that the HQCJ decision was merely an intermediate act not subject to independent judicial review in the absence of an HCJ decision.
– The Grand Chamber determined that in this specific case, an HCJ decision would never be rendered, as the judge’s authority terminated due to reaching the age of 65.
– The Court emphasized that the lack of an opportunity to challenge the HQCJ’s findings in this situation violates the very essence of an individual’s right to access a court, as guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
– Since the HQCJ’s findings regarding unfitness for the position held can negatively affect an individual’s professional reputation and private life, they must be subject to judicial review.
– The Grand Chamber effectively departed from its previous established practice, under which an HQCJ decision regarding unfitness for the position held could not be a separate subject of judicial review if it had not been subject to HCJ consideration.
– The Court stressed that the right to judicial protection cannot be blocked solely due to the specifics of procedural stages if those stages cannot objectively be completed.
3. **Court’s Decision:** The Grand Chamber granted the plaintiff’s appeal, set aside the court of first instance’s ruling on the closure of proceedings, and remanded the case to the Administrative Court of Cassation for consideration on the merits.
