CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 octobre 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 } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sA20670C4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6674DD39 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; list-style-position:inside } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt }   Communicated on 10 October 2017   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 72681/10 Mykola Andriyovych GARBUZ against Ukraine and 3 other applications (see list appended) STATEMENT OF FACTS A list of the applicants, who are Ukrainian nationals, is set out in the Appendix. The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. 1.     All cases The applicants were convicted of various offences. In convicting them the domestic courts relied on the evidence of certain witnesses who were not examined in the course of the trials. The relevant details are set out in the Appendix. 2.     Particular cases (a)     Application no. 72681/10 In application no. 72681/10 the proceedings against the applicant started on 21 February 2002 when the police seized what it believed to be bribe money from him. His conviction became final on 9 June 2010, when a Supreme Court judge refused him leave to appeal on points of law against his conviction. (b)     Application no. 30180/11 The applicant was arrested on 5 July 2007. He was interviewed by the police concerning his role in an attack on a certain Mr   A.B.K. According to the applicant, his rights, including the right to a lawyer, were not explained to him. The applicant made a statement denying any wrongdoing, a position he maintained throughout the proceedings. His arrest was documented and his rights, including his right to a lawyer, were explained to the applicant the next day, 6 July 2007. It appears that in convicting the applicant the domestic courts made no reference to his statement of 5 July 2007. COMPLAINTS The applicants complain under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention that they were unable to examine certain witnesses against them. In application no. 72681/10 the applicant also complains under Article   6 §   1 of the Convention of the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him. In application no. 30180/11 the applicant also complains that his right to legal assistance under Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention was breached because his rights were not explained to him and he was questioned on the first day of his arrest. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against them, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and in the light of the procedural guarantees afforded by: (a)     in all applications, Article 6 §   3 (d) of the Convention and, (b)     in application no. 30180/11, also Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention?   2.     In application no. 72681/10, was the length of the criminal proceedings against the applicant in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? Appendix   No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant Date of birth and place of residence Communicated complaint concerning failure to examine certain witnesses   72681/10 02/12/2010 Mykola Andriyovych GARBUZ 27/07/1952 Vysokyy village, Kharkiv Region Victim V.Yu.P., attesting witnesses T.N.S. and T.P.T. and witness T.V.S. were not examined.   30180/11 06/05/2011 Pavel Yevgenyevich FAMULYAK 21/06/1980 Lviv   Victim A.B.K. and police officers A.M.K., Ya.M., I.S., who gave evidence describing the victim’s initial statements to the police, were not examined in the course of the final retrial. However, it appears that some of them had been examined in the course of the initial trial.   53791/11 17/08/2011 Mykhaylo Mykhaylovych CHERNIKA 30/07/1974 Lutsk   Witnesses Ms N.Sh., Mr V.G. and Mr I.S., through whom the applicant attempted to sell drugs, were not examined in the course of the trial. The applicant had an opportunity to confront the witnesses in the course of the pre-trial investigation but not during the trial.   66362/11 14/10/2011 Andrey Vasilyevich KARTASHOV 22/06/1968 Odessa The victims, Mr Sh. and Ms M., from whom the applicant supposedly solicited a bribe, were not examined in the course of the final retrial. However, it appears that Sh. had been examined in the initial trial.