CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 23 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 } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt }   Communicated on 23 September 2016   THIRD SECTION Applications nos 51101/06 and 32520/07 Vitaliy Nikolayevich ZHITKOV against Russia and Oleg Vsevolodovich ZLOTNIKOV against Russia lodged on 14 November 2006 and 6 July 2007 respectively STATEMENT OF FACTS 1.     The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. A.     Application no. 51101/06 2.     The applicant, Mr Vitaliy Nikolayevich Zhitkov, is a Russian national who was born in 1965 and lives in Khabarovsk. 3.     In 2005 the police charged the applicant with manslaughter by negligence. He was suspected of causing a car accident in which four other passengers had died and fifteen had been injured. 4.     According to a psychiatric report of 22 September 2005, the applicant suffered from epilepsy, had very poor eyesight and had been unable to control or understand his actions at the time of the accident. The experts considered the applicant fit to stand trial but recommended inpatient psychiatric treatment. 5.     On 27 June 2006 the Tsentralnyy District Court of Khabarovsk examined the evidence and heard the witnesses. The applicant was present and was assisted by his lawyer. The District Court found the applicant unfit to bear criminal responsibility on account of his mental state, and ordered compulsory treatment in a psychiatric facility. 6.     The applicant and his lawyer lodged an appeal. On 5   October 2006 the Khabarovsk Regional Court denied the applicant leave to appear and upheld the District Court’s judgment in his absence. B.     Application no. 32520/07 7.     The applicant, Mr Oleg Vsevolodovich Zlotnikov, is a Russian national who was born in 1956 and lives in the Smolensk Region. 8.     In 2005 the police charged the applicant with disorderly conduct because he had threatened his ex-girlfriend’s parents with a gun. According to a psychiatric report of 21 June 2005, the applicant suffered from chronic schizophrenia and could not understand or control his actions at the time of the events. The report also stated that he was unfit to stand trial or plead. 9.     On 1 March 2006 the Velizhskiy District Court of the Smolensk Region established the facts and heard the witnesses. The applicant was absent from the trial proceedings but represented by a lawyer. The court held that the applicant had acted while in a state of insanity, could not bear criminal responsibility on account of his mental state, and ordered compulsory treatment in a psychiatric facility. 10.     The applicant appealed against the judgment but on 23 January 2007 the Smolensk Regional Court dismissed his claim in a summary judgment. The applicant was absent from the appellate hearing. C.     Relevant domestic law and practice 11.     Provisions governing proceedings on the application of compulsory medical treatment are described in Valeriy Lopata v. Russia (no. 19936/04, §§ 79-81, 30 October 2012). COMPLAINTS 12.     The applicants complain under Article 6 of the Convention about their absence from the appellate hearings in the criminal proceedings against them.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge against them, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, does the applicants’ absence from the appeal hearings disclose a breach of Article 6 of the Convention (see Valeriy Lopata v. Russia , no.   19936/04, §§ 122-29, 30 October 2012)?