CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 juin 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 }   Communicated on 7 June 2017   THIRD SECTION Application no. 11316/10 Sergey Anatolyevich POLUFAKIN against Russia lodged on 4 February 2010 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE On 16/07/09 the applicant was convicted of an administrative offence, with reference to reports by officers U. and X., and was sentenced to withdrawal of the driving licence for 18 months. In his statement of appeal the applicant sought to have a witness (L.). summoned to testify on behalf of the defence and specified his address for issuing summonses. The applicant’s wife made an oral request for adjournment at the registry of the court, informing it that the day before the applicant had been admitted to hospital with an acute heart condition. However, the appeal court proceeded with the hearing listed for the same afternoon, noting in its judgment of 12 August 2009 that “the defendant had been notified of the hearing date and had not lodged a motion for adjournment”. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the charge against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was there a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3(b)-(d) on account of the hearings being held in the applicant’s absence and the impossibility to examine U., L. and X.? Was the applicant afforded an adequate opportunity to “defend himself in person”, to challenge adverse evidence and to “obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him”?