CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold }   Communicated on 16 June 2017   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 21004/11 Denys BILETSKYY against Ukraine lodged on 21 March 2011 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged violation of the applicant’s right under Article 6 of the Convention to fair trial, the principle of the equality of arms. In particular, the applicant was not present at the hearing before the Brovary District Court of Kyiv Region, which on 29 June 2011 found him guilty in absentia of causing a traffic accident. The applicant alleges that he had not been informed of the date of the hearing and that the first instance court’s judgement had not been notified to him. His motion to renew the time-limit for filing an appeal and the request to consider the appeal was rejected by the appellate court. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant duly notified of the date of the hearing before the Brovary District Court of Kyiv Region? Having been tried in absentia , did the applicant have the possibility to obtain the reopening of the proceedings?   2.     Was the right of the applicant under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to a fair hearing infringed?