CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 24 février 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s2A91C753 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4598CDF { width:70.9pt; display:inline-block } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .sF5B27E79 { width:130.75pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold }   FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 63452/17 Vyacheslav Leonidovych PUSTOVYY against Ukraine The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 24   February 2022 as a Committee composed of:   Lətif Hüseynov, President,   Lado Chanturia,   Arnfinn Bårdsen, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 15   August 2017, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant’s details are set out in the appended table. He was represented by Mr O.A. Ignatov, a lawyer practising in Dnipro. The applicant’s complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. He also complained of about the impossibility to cross-examine certain witnesses in those proceedings. THE LAW In view of the minor nature of the sanction imposed on the applicant by the domestic authorities (for further details see the appended table), the Court is of the opinion that he did not suffer   a significant disadvantage   on account of the circumstances he complained of (for similar reasoning, see Gulmammadov v. Azerbaijan (dec) [Committee], no. 33234/08, 12   December 2017 and Bondarenko v. Ukraine (dec.) [Committee], no. 35432/10, 17   September 2019). The Court further considers the second element set out in Article 35 § 3 (b) compelling it to examine the case in any event if respect for human rights so requires. Considering the present case from this perspective, the Court does not see any compelling reason to warrant its examination on the merits. In view of the above, the Court finds that these complaints must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §§   3 (b) and   4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 15 September 2022.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Lətif Hüseynov   Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Article   6 § 1 of the Convention (lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings) Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth Representative’s name and location Penalty Date of final domestic decision Name of court   63452/17 15/08/2017 Vyacheslav Leonidovych PUSTOVYY 1981   Ignatov Oleksandr Anatoliyovych Dnipro community service later replaced by administrative fine of UAH 212.5 (approximately 7 euros) 20/04/2017, Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal