ECHR accepts for examination the second case of Kasminin v. Ukraine submitted by LESHCHENKO & PARTNERS

On 9 June 2026, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg accepted for examination the second case of Kasminin v. Ukraine, officially notifying the legal team of LESHCHENKO & PARTNERS.

The interests of Oleksandr Kasminin, former Judge of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, Honoured Lawyer of Ukraine, and PhD in Law, are represented in these proceedings by Managing Partner Oleksandr Leshchenko and Partner, Head of the Odesa Office, Andrii Leshchenko.

This is the second case concerning Oleksandr Kasminin that has been accepted for examination by the European Court of Human Rights and prepared by the team of LESHCHENKO & PARTNERS.

Background of the Case

The application concerns the prolonged uncertainty surrounding Mr. Kasminin’s legal status following the annulment by the Supreme Court of the Presidential Decree terminating his powers as a Judge of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine.

The application submitted to the ECHR argues that the Client’s rights were significantly violated due to the prolonged inaction of state authorities in resolving his legal status and their failure to consider his applications for resignation.

According to the legal team, the situation resulted in a paradoxical position whereby Mr. Kasminin was unable to perform his judicial functions as a judge of the Constitutional Court due to obstacles created by the state, while at the same time the authorities failed for an extended period to take the necessary steps to resolve his status or consider his resignation requests.

The application further alleges violations of the Client’s right to a fair trial, guarantees of judicial independence and impartiality, the right to respect for private life, and the prohibition of discrimination.

Chronology of Events

In 2021, the President of Ukraine issued a decree cancelling the decree appointing Oleksandr Kasminin as a Judge of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine.

The team of LESHCHENKO & PARTNERS challenged that decision before the courts.

As a result of the proceedings, the Supreme Court declared the Presidential Decree unlawful and annulled it.

Despite this judgment, Mr. Kasminin remained in a state of legal uncertainty for an extended period. He was effectively prevented from exercising his powers as a Constitutional Court judge, while his applications for resignation remained unconsidered.

In response, LESHCHENKO & PARTNERS filed a lawsuit seeking recognition of the unlawful inactivity of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine.

The Kyiv District Administrative Court upheld the claim, declared the inactivity of the Constitutional Court unlawful, and ordered the Constitutional Court to consider Mr. Kasminin’s resignation application and adopt an appropriate decision within one month from the date the judgment became final.

However, despite the existence of a final and binding court judgment, the Constitutional Court of Ukraine has continued to fail to comply with it.

This circumstance became one of the grounds for submitting the second application to the ECHR.

Position of the Defence Team

In the application before the ECHR, LESHCHENKO & PARTNERS emphasised the systemic and multifaceted nature of the violations at issue.

In particular, the application raises concerns regarding a violation of the right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights due to the failure to execute a final court judgment requiring the Constitutional Court of Ukraine to consider the Client’s resignation.

Special attention is also given to the guarantees of judicial independence and impartiality. According to the defence team, the prolonged uncertainty regarding the status of a Constitutional Court judge and the lack of an adequate response by state authorities undermine the individual guarantees of judicial independence.

The application further raises issues under Article 8 of the Convention. The defence team argues that the right to respect for private life extends to the professional sphere of an individual’s life and that prolonged legal uncertainty combined with the effective exclusion from professional activity may amount to an interference with that right.

In addition, the Client points to discriminatory treatment, noting that other judges of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine in comparable circumstances were granted resignation without similar disputes or procedural obstacles.

Significance of the Case

According to LESHCHENKO & PARTNERS, this case is significant not only for the protection of the rights of a particular individual.

It raises broader issues concerning judicial independence, guarantees of judicial status, and the obligation of state authorities to comply with court judgments.

The acceptance of the application for examination constitutes an important procedural milestone. According to ECHR statistics, the overwhelming majority of applications do not pass the admissibility stage. Therefore, the Court’s decision to proceed with the examination of this case indicates that the issues raised warrant assessment at the level of an international judicial institution.