The Polyakh Case: Implications for Lustration in Ukraine and Abroad

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18523/2414-9942.11.2025.110-127

Keywords:

Lustration, Constitutional Court of Ukraine, Polyakh case, European Court of Human Rights

Abstract

In October of 2019, the ECtHR found violations of the Convention in the case of Polyakh and Others v. Ukraine, thereby questioning the legitimacy of Ukrainian lustration and declaring that such interference had no signs of being necessary in a democratic society. The Strasbourg decision, even so, implied a new and permissible scope in subject and time for lustration. This paper analyses the implications of the ECtHR decision in the Polyakh and Others v. Ukraine case regarding the constitutionality of lustration in Ukraine and it assesses the Government Cleansing Act’s international implications.

Author Biographies

Bohdan Bernatskyi, Vilnius University, European University Institute, National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy

PhD, Research Fellow at Vilnius University, European University Institute, and Senior Lecturer at the National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy

Anastasiia Mits, Yaroslav Mudryi National Law University

PhD student, Yaroslav Mudryi National Law University, Department of Constitutional Law of Ukraine

References

  1. Bachmann, Klaus, and Igor Lyubashenko. “The Puzzle of Transitional Justice in Ukraine.” International Journal of Transitional Justice 11, no. 2 (2017): 297–314.
  2. Brems, Eva. “Transitional Justice in the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights.” International Journal of Transitional Justice 5, no. 2 (2011): 282–303.
  3. Center for Political and Legal Studies. “It Is the First Time When a System That Allowed to Foresee the Prospects of the State’s Development Is Created.” April 23, 2018. http://pravo.org.ua/ua/news/20872833-v-ukrayini-vpershe-stvorena-sistema,-yaka-dozvolyae-pobachiti-perspektivi-rozvitku-dergeavi,---kerivnik-politichnogo-viddilu-predstavnitstva-es-v-ukrayini.
  4. Cliteur, Paul, and Bastiaan Rijpkema. “The Foundations of Militant Democracy.” In The State of Exception and Militant Democracy in a Time of Terror, edited by Afshin Ellian and Gelijn Molier, 256. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Republic of Letters Publishing, 2012.
  5. Constitutional Court of Albania. Decision No. 9, V–9/10. March 23, 2010.
  6. Constitutional Court of Ukraine. Decision No. 20-рп/2010. September 30, 2010.
  7. Constitutional Court of Ukraine. Decision No. 9-р/2019. July 16, 2019.
  8. Constitutional Court of Ukraine. Dissenting Opinion of Judge I. Melnyk on the Decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine in the Case on the Constitutional Petition of 49 People's Deputies of Ukraine on the Compliance with the Constitution of Ukraine (Constitutionality) of Paragraph 7 of Part Two of Article 42 of the Law of Ukraine “On Higher Education.” https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/na02d710-17#Text.
  9. Constitutional Court of Ukraine. Dissenting Opinion of Judge I. Slidenko on the Decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine in the Case on the Constitutional Petition of 49 People's Deputies of Ukraine on the Compliance with the Constitution of Ukraine (Constitutionality) of Paragraph 7 of Part Two of Article 42 of the Law of Ukraine “On Higher Education.” https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/nc02d710-17#n2.
  10. Constitutional Court of Ukraine. Dissenting Opinion of Judge V. Moisyk on the Decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine in the Case on the Constitutional Petition of 49 People's Deputies of Ukraine on the Compliance with the Constitution of Ukraine (Constitutionality) of Paragraph 7 of Part Two of Article 42 of the Law of Ukraine “On Higher Education.” https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/nb02d710-17#Text.
  11. Constitutional Court of Ukraine. “The Constitutional Court of Ukraine Has Completed the Oral Hearing of the Case on the Constitutionality of Certain Provisions of the Law of Ukraine.” https://ccu.gov.ua/novyna/konstytuciynyy-sud-ukrayiny-zavershyv-usne-sluhannya-spravy-shchodo-konstytuciynosti-okremyh.
  12. Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic. Judgment Pl. ÚS 9/01: Lustration II. 2001.
  13. Civic Solidarity. “Ukraine: Brief Legal Analysis of Dictatorship Law.” January 20, 2015. http://www.civicsolidarity.org/article/880/ukraine-brief-legal-analysis-dictatorship-law.
  14. David, Roman. “Lustration in Ukraine and Democracy Capable of Defending Itself.” In Transitional Justice and the Former Soviet Union: Reviewing the Past, Looking toward the Future, edited by Cynthia M. Horne and Lavinia Stan, 135‑54. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018.
  15. ECtHR. Bester v. Germany. Judgment of July 16, 2009. App. 32717/02.
  16. ECtHR. Knauth v. Germany. Judgment of September 28, 2006. App. 12738/01.
  17. ECtHR. Luboch v. Poland. Judgment of January 15, 2008. App. No. 37469/05. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-84373%22]}.
  18. ECtHR. Polyakh and Others v. Ukraine. Judgment of October 17, 2019. Apps. 58812/15 and 4 others.
  19. ECtHR. Sidabras and Džiautas v. Lithuania. Judgment of July 27, 2004. Apps. 55480/00 and 59330/00.
  20. ECtHR. Streletz, Kessler and Krenz v. Germany. Judgment of March 22, 2001. Apps. 34044/96, 35532/97, and 44801/98.
  21. ECtHR. United Communist Party of Turkey v. Turkey. Judgment of January 30, 1998. App. 19392/92.
  22. ECtHR. Vogt v. Germany. Judgment of September 26, 1995. App. 17851/91.
  23. ECtHR. Ždanoka v. Latvia. Judgment of March 16, 2006. App. 58278/00.
  24. Federal Constitutional Court of Germany. Judgment of the Second Senate of 17 January 2017 — 2 BvB 1/13.
  25. Law of Albania. Law No. 10034 “On the Cleanliness of the Figure of High Functionaries of the Public Administration and Elected Persons.” December 22, 2008.
  26. Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. Resolution 1096 (1996), “Measures to Dismantle the Heritage of Former Communist Totalitarian Systems.” Strasbourg: Council of Europe, 1996.
  27. Poland. Act “On the Disclosure of Information on Documents of State Security Agencies from the Period between the Years 1944–1990 and the Content of Such Documents.”
  28. Robertson, David. “A Problem of Their Own, Solutions of Their Own: CEE Jurisdictions and the Problems of Lustration and Retroactivity.” In Spreading Democracy and the Rule of Law? The Impact of EU Enlargement on the Rule of Law, Democracy and Constitutionalism in Post-Communist Legal Orders, edited by Wojciech Sadurski, Adam Czarnota, and Martin Krygier, 88. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer, 2006.
  29. Supreme Court of Ukraine. Resolution No. 813/7910/14. July 15, 2020. Єдиний державний реєстр судових рішень. https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/90425382.
  30. Supreme Court of Ukraine. Resolution No. 815/3268/15. January 31, 2018. Єдиний державний реєстр судових рішень. https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/71979644.
  31. Supreme Court of Ukraine. Resolution No. 823/3269/14. October 18, 2023. Єдиний державний реєстр судових рішень. https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/114270365.
  32. Trochev, Alexei. “Ukraine: Constitutional Court Invalidates Ban on Communist Party.” International Journal of Constitutional Law 1, no. 3 (2003): 534–540.
  33. Ukrinform. “The Ministry of Justice Has Drafted a Bill Changing the Lustration Procedure.” May 21, 2020. https://www.ukrinform.ua/rubric-polytics/3030367-minust-rozrobiv-zakonoproekt-so-zminue-proceduru-lustracii.html.
  34. Uzelac, Alan. “(In)Surpassable Barriers to Lustration: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” In Lustration and Consolidation of Democracy and the Rule of Law in Central and Eastern Europe, edited by Vladimira Dvořáková and Anđelko Milardović, 47–48. Zagreb, Croatia: Political Science Research Centre, 2007.
  35. Venice Commission. “Joint Interim Opinion on the Law of Ukraine on the Condemnation of the Communist and National Socialist (Nazi) Regimes and Prohibition of Propaganda of Their Symbols.” December 18–19, 2015.

Downloads

Published

2025-12-29

How to Cite

Bernatskyi, B., & Mits, A. (2025). The Polyakh Case: Implications for Lustration in Ukraine and Abroad. Kyiv-Mohyla Law and Politics Journal, (11), 110–127. https://doi.org/10.18523/2414-9942.11.2025.110-127

Issue

No. 11 (2025): Kyiv-Mohyla Law & Politics Journal

Section

Articles

License

Copyright (c) 2025 Bohdan Bernatskyi, Anastasiia Mits

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Kyiv-Mohyla Law and Politics Journal provides free access to original research without restriction barriers (i.e. subscription fees, licensing fees etc.).

Unless otherwise indicated, content is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license, which means you are free to:

distribute, remix, tweak, and build upon your work, even commercially

...provided that any use is made with attribution to author(s) and Kyiv-Mohyla Law and Politics Journal.

The copyright in the article or any other submission to Kyiv-Mohyla Law and Politics Journal shall remain with the author(s).

The journal allows the author(s) to hold the copyright without restrictions and will retain publishing rights without restrictions.