CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 septembre 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 19 September 2016   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 62765/15 Hans Ulrich BRINKHOFER against Germany lodged on 12 December 2015 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the decision of the Aachen Regional Court, on 15   September 2014, to dismiss the applicant’s appeal against his conviction without an examination of the merits because the applicant did not attend the appeal hearing, while his counsel was present and declared that he was duly mandated and ready to defend the applicant in his absence.   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, 3 (c) of the Convention?