CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 25 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 25 October 2017   THIRD SECTION Application no. 2606/11 Abdrakhim Bolkarayevich BOLKARAYEV against Russia lodged on 17 December 2010 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE Having heard, inter alia , victim A. and his father, in May 2008 a court convicted the applicant of breaching the traffic rules causing serious injuries to A., and was acquitted of leaving A. in a life-threatening situation. The applicant was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment. He started to serve the prison sentence. In May 2009 his conviction was quashed under the “new circumstances” procedure because of A.’s father’s new testimony. A new investigation was authorised and carried out in relation to the same event and in relation to additional charges concerning victims K. and T. In 2010 a jury found the applicant guilty of A.’s attempted murder, an assault against K. and T.’s attempted murder. A judge sentenced the applicant to 14   years’ imprisonment for those offences. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? Were the principle of equality of arms and the requirement of adversarial procedure violated, inter alia , on account of the refusal to hear specialist Sh. on behalf of the defence (see Matytsina v. Russia , no.   58428/10, §§ 166-208, 27 March 2014, and Pello v. Estonia , no.   11423/03, §§ 24-35, 12 April 2007)? Did it violate the applicant’s right under Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention?   2.1.     Was the criminal case reopened “in accordance with the law and penal procedure” within the meaning of Article 4 § 2 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention? Were there genuine “new or newly discovered facts”? Alternatively, was the decision to reopen the case justified with reference to “a fundamental defect in the previous proceedings”? If not, was there a violation of Article 4 § 1 of Protocol No. 7 on account of the proceedings in 2009-10 (compare Fadin v. Russia , no. 58079/00, § 32, 27   July 2006 concerning the supervisory-review procedure)?   2.2.     Was there a violation of Article 6 of the Convention on account of the quashing of the final conviction in May 2009? Has the applicant complied with the six-month rule under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (compare Sardin v. Russia (dec.), no.   69582/01, 12 February 2004 concerning the supervisory-review procedure)?