CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 décembre 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase }     FIFTH SECTION Application no. 17735/06 Valeriy Grigoryevich CHOPENKO against Ukraine lodged on 14 April 2006     The facts and complaints in this case have been summarised in the Statement of Facts, which is available in HUDOC.   The parties’ further observations should be limited to the following aspects of the case.   On 12 January 2006 Article 391 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine was amended by introduction of a one-month time-limit for lodging request to attend the hearing in the Supreme Court in a criminal case. During this period such request was binding for the court. These amendments entered into force on 7 February 2006. The applicant’s request of 17 February 2006 was rejected by the Supreme Court as lodged outside the time-limit. QUESTIONS   Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and in the light of the procedural guarantees afforded by paragraph   3 (c) of this provision? In particular, was the Supreme Court’s refusal for the applicant to participate in a court hearing based on law, in view of changes introduced to the Criminal Procedure Code on 12   January   2006?