FIFTH SECTIONCASE OF BANTYSH AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE(Applications nos. 13063/18 and 3 others – see appended list)      JUDGMENT    STRASBOURG6 October 2022This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Bantysh and Others v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, President, Ivana Jelić, Kateřina Šimáčková, judges,and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,Having deliberated in private on 25 August 2022,Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:PROCEDURE1. The case originated in applications against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.2. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.THE FACTS3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.4. The applicants complained of the lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.THE LAWJOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 of the Convention6. The applicants complained of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 6 §§ 1 and/or 2 of the Convention. The Court, being the master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of any case before it (see Akdeniz v. Turkey, no. 25165/94, § 88, 31 May 2005), considers that these complaints fall to be examined under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention which reads as follows:Article 6 § 1“In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.”7. The relevant principles of the Court’s case-law concerning the requirement of impartiality under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention can be found in Karelin v. Russia (no. 926/08, §§ 51-57, 20 September 2016, with further references).8. In the leading case of Mikhaylova v. Ukraine (no. 10644/08, 6 March 2018), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.9. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of the complaints in the instant case.10.

Outcome for Article 6: violation