Communicated on 3 January 2019<\/p>\n
FOURTH SECTION<\/p>\n
Application no.70728\/10
\nTatyana PetrovnaBILYK
\nagainst Ukraine
\nlodged on 20 November 2010<\/p>\n
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE<\/p>\n
The application concerns an alleged violation under Article 6 of the Convention of the right to have one\u2019s civil rights determined \u201cby an independent and impartial tribunal\u201d.<\/p>\n
The applicant, who was a lecturer of geography and psychology at the Dnipropetrovsk Higher College of Physical Culture, was dismissed in July 2007 for systematic breach of her functional duties and staff regulations. She filed a claim to the civil courts, asking for her reinstatement, recovery of salary arrears and compensation. At first instance, the Kirovskyy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk rejected her claim in full. Thereafter, the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal ordered her to be reinstated and partly allowed her claim for salary arrears and compensation. She complains that the judges of both courts were lacking independence and impartiality. She claims that the respondent had paid for the installation of window grids in the first-instance court\u2019s building and that the judge Ch., who was sitting in a panel that decided her case at the appeal stage, has been seen together with the respondent\u2019s representative attending a pool and sauna that belonged to the respondent. On 25 April 2012 the Higher Supreme Court of Ukraine upheld the decision of the appellate court.<\/p>\n
QUESTION tO THE PARTIES<\/p>\n
Did the applicant in the proceedings before the Kirovskyy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk and the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal have a fair hearing by an \u201cindependent and impartial tribunal\u201d for the determination of her civil rights within the meaning of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention?<\/p>\n