CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 juin 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s7ACB8D74 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt }   Communicated on 28 June 2016   THIRD SECTION Application no 37617/10 Euclides CABRAL against the Netherlands lodged on 25 June 2010     The facts and complaints in this application have been summarised in the Court’s decision, which is available in HUDOC. QUESTION In respect of the fourth charge only, (a)     was the applicant able to examine witnesses against him, as required by Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention (in particular the witness V.); (b)     if not, was the evidence of the witness V. “sole or decisive”; and (c)     if so, did “sufficient counterbalancing factors” obtain (compare Vidgen v. the Netherlands , no. 29353/06, 10 July 2012, and Schatschaschwili v. Germany (GC), no. 9154/10, ECHR 2016)?