CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 juillet 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 } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 7 July 2016   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 18807/14 Sandro SCHNEIDER against Germany lodged on 28 February 2014 SUBJECT MATTER OF the CASE The application concerns the decision of the Magdeburg Regional Court, on 30 January 2013, to dismiss the applicant’s appeal against his conviction of three counts of theft by the Aschersleben District Court. The Regional Court rejected the appeal without an examination of the merits because the applicant did not attend the hearing, relying on Article 329 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which provided for that procedure. The applicant’s counsel was present at the hearing and, referring to this Court’s judgment in the case of Neziraj v. Germany (no. 30804/07, 8 November 2012), declared that he was both mandated and ready to defend the applicant. The applicant complains under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention about a breach of his rights of access to court, to be heard and to defend himself through legal assistance.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Having regard to the Court’s case-law (see, in particular, Neziraj v.   Germany , no. 30804/07, 8 November 2012), was the applicant able to defend himself through legal assistance of his own choosing, as required by Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention?