CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 mars 2017

.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 10 March 2017   THIRD SECTION Application no. 65107/16 Rosa GRACIA GONZALEZ against Spain lodged on 21 October 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s right to adversarial proceedings and equality of arms in the framework of criminal proceedings instituted after her husband’s death in an aeroplane crash. The applicant appeared as a party in the said proceedings. Following the Prosecutor’s observations, the Audiencia Provincial decided to strike the case out, without giving the opportunity to the parties to the proceedings to comment on the observations filed. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Was Article 6 § 1 of the Convention applicable to the proceedings in the present case? In particular, did the applicant, who had victim/injured-party status in the criminal proceedings, pursue civil claims in that case so as to bring the civil limb of Article 6 § 1 into play?   2.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of her civil rights and obligations in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, having regard that the Audiencia Provincial decided to strike the case out without giving the opportunity to the parties to the proceedings to comment on the observations filed by the Prosecutor?