CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 14 septembre 2023

.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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6C5BED22 { margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4598CDF { width:70.9pt; display:inline-block } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s418B82EF { width:132.42pt; 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 } .sFF075836 { margin-right:7.05pt; margin-left:7.05pt; 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 } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold }   FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 64290/17 Oleg Volodymyrovych SHTUL against Ukraine and 5 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 14   September 2023 as a Committee composed of:   Carlo Ranzoni, President ,   Lado Chanturia,   María Elósegui , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The list of applicants is set out in the appended table. The applicants’ complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings were communicated to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”). In some of the applications, complaints based on the same facts were also communicated under other provisions of the Convention. THE LAW Joinder of the applications Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. 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) In the present applications, having examined all the material before it, the Court finds that the applicants did not duly raise the matters they now raise before the Court before the domestic courts (see Kulish v. Ukraine (dec.), no.   6023/23, 15 June 2023 [Committee]). In view of the above, the Court finds that these complaints do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Article 35 §§ 1 and 3 (a) and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. Remaining complaints Some applicants also raised other complaints under various articles of the Convention (see Appendix). The Court has examined the applications listed in the appended table and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles   34 and   35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §   4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 5 October 2023.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Carlo Ranzoni   Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX List of applications 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) No. 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 Other complaints under well-established case-law     64290/17 24/08/2017 Oleg Volodymyrovych SHTUL 1972 Grishyn Yevgen Oleksiyovych Zhytomyr suspension of the driving licence for one year, administrative fine of UAH 10,200 23/02/2017 Zhytomyr Regional Court of Appeal       932/21 21/12/2020 Vitaliy Yaroslavovych DMYTRYK 1980     administrative fine of UAH 4,930 24/07/2020 Lviv Court of Appeal   20/08/2020 Lviv Court of Appeal       21375/21 08/04/2021 Volodymyr Yaroslavovych MYSKIV 1982 Bobykaylo Nazar Igorovych Lviv suspension of the driving licence, administrative fine of UAH 10,200 09/10/2020 Lviv Court of Appeal       23534/22 19/04/2022 Yuriy Mykolayovych KORENKIVSKIY 1983 Samulyak Mykhaylo Yuriyovych Ternopil suspension of the driving licence for one year, administrative fine of UAH 17,000 11/11/2021 Ternopil Court of Appeal       44622/22 31/08/2022 Volodymyr Viktorovych OVSYANYKOV 1970 Ignatov Oleksandr Anatoliyovych Dnipro suspension of the driving licence, for one   year, administrative fine of UAH 17,000 14/06/2022 Dnipro Court of Appeal Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - the applicant stated that the court had failed to hear witnesses D. and V. - The applicant’s conviction was based on the plethora of evidence, including the videorecording.     44631/22 31/08/2022 Sergiy Sergiyovych BOZDYRYEV 1976 Ignatov Oleksandr Anatoliyovych Dnipro suspension of the driving licence, for one   year, administrative fine of UAH 17,000 04/05/2022 Dnipro Court of Appeal Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - the applicant complains that he was not able to examine witnesses S. and B. - The applicant’s conviction was based on the plethora of evidence, including the videorecording.