FIFTH SECTIONCASE OF MARKUSH v. UKRAINE(Application no. 37358/21)     JUDGMENT STRASBOURG23 October 2025   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Markush v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: María Elósegui, President, Andreas Zünd, Mykola Gnatovskyy, judges,and Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar,Having regard to:the application (no. 37358/21) against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 15 July 2021 by a Ukrainian national, Ms Mariya Andriyivna Markush (“the applicant”), who was born in 1955, lives in Kyiv and was represented by Mr I. Boychenyuk, a lawyer practising in Kyiv;the decision to give notice of part of the complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Article 8 of the Convention to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Ms M. Sokorenko, from the Ministry of Justice, and to declare the complaint under Article 18 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 8 inadmissible;the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 25 September 2025,Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE1. The present case concerns the dismissal of a Constitutional Court judge by Parliament, allegedly in breach of Article 6 § 1 and Article 8 of the Convention.2. On 4 August 2006 Parliament appointed the applicant to the post of judge of the Constitutional Court for a non-renewable term of nine years.3. On 24 February 2014 Parliament voted to dismiss the applicant from her post for breach of her judicial oath in connection with her participation in the delivery of the Constitutional Court’s judgment of 30 September 2010. By the same resolution, Parliament also dismissed the other Constitutional Court judges who had been appointed under Parliament’s quota (see Ovcharenko and Kolos v. Ukraine, nos. 27276/15 and 33692/15, §§ 16-20, 12 January 2023, and Golovin v. Ukraine, no. 47052/18, § 6, 13 July 2023).4. In March 2014 the applicant challenged her dismissal before the High Administrative Court (“the HAC”).5. On 26 June 2017 the HAC declared unlawful the parliamentary resolution of 24 February 2014 with respect to the applicant’s dismissal but refused to order her reinstatement. In its decision the HAC referred to international and domestic legal principles concerning the independence of the judiciary and concluded that those principles had not been respected by Parliament. In particular, the HAC referred to section 28 of the Constitutional Court Act, which specified that judges could not be held liable for the results of their votes (see Ovcharenko and Kolos, cited above, § 41). It further found that Parliament had failed to follow the procedure for the dismissal of a judge of the Constitutional Court and that there had been no indication that any individual liability of the applicant had been established.6. In July 2017 the applicant and Parliament asked the Supreme Court of Ukraine (“the SCU”) to review the HAC’s decision of 26 June 2017.7. As a result of judicial reforms in 2016, on 15 December 2017 the new Supreme Court (“the SC”) began to operate, and the HAC and the SCU ceased to function.8. On 19 December 2018 the Administrative Cassation Court within the SC (“the ACC”) granted the above-mentioned requests for review in part. The ACC pointed out that the HAC had not established, inter alia, whether Parliament had complied with the procedure for the dismissal of a judge of the Constitutional Court or whether the applicant’s actions had constituted a “breach of judicial oath”. As a result, the ACC quashed the HAC’s decision of 26 June 2017 and remitted the case for fresh consideration by a first‑instance court (that is, the ACC sitting as another panel of judges).9. On 24 July 2019 the ACC found against the applicant, noting that Parliament, in adopting its resolution of 24 February 2014, had acted within its powers and in the order provided for in the Constitution and laws of Ukraine. In particular, the ACC pointed out that Parliament had complied with the procedure for the dismissal of the applicant from her post of judge of the Constitutional Court and that the dismissal had been compatible with the Constitution, the Constitutional Court Act and the Rules of Parliament. The ACC also emphasised that Parliament had dismissed the applicant not for the position she had taken and/or the way she had voted in relation to the Constitutional Court’s judgment of 30 September 2010, but for actions that amounted to a breach of her judicial oath in connection with the delivery of the judgment.10. In August 2019 the applicant appealed to the Grand Chamber of the SC (“the GC”) against the ACC’s decision of 24 July 2019.11. By a final decision dated 20 January 2021, the GC amended the reasoning of the ACC’s decision of 24 July 2019. The GC held that the Constitutional Court had acted beyond its powers during the delivery of its judgment of 30 September 2010 as it had in fact invalidated binding provisions of the Constitution. The GC considered that in delivering its judgment the Constitutional Court had failed to ensure the supremacy of the Constitution, had changed the Constitution and the constitutional system by violating the fundamental principles of democracy and the separation of powers, and had undermined the legitimacy of the State authorities, whose activities had since then been based on rules established by the Constitutional Court and not by Parliament. The GC found that the applicant’s participation in the delivery of that judgment and the consequences of such participation had been manifestly inconsistent with her judicial oath.RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE12. The relevant domestic law, international materials and comparative‑law material can be found in Ovcharenko and Kolos (cited above, §§ 33-73).THE COURT’S ASSESSMENTAlleged Violation of Article 8 (Right to respect for private life) And Article 6 § 1 OF the Convention (Right to a reasoned judgment)13. Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, the applicant complained that her right to respect for her private life had been violated because of her unlawful dismissal.14. Referring to Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant complained that her right to a reasoned judgment had not been respected in her case.15. The Government made submissions similar to those made in Ovcharenko and Kolos (cited above, §§ 90 and 117-19) and Golovin (cited above, § 20).

Outcome for Article 8: violation