CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 décembre 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 8 December 2017   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 31592/15 Olivér András SCHIPP against Hungary lodged on 22 June 2015 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s conviction, on 4 March 2015, for vigilantism in proceedings in which the foreigner victim, a key witness, was not examined by the courts since he was unavailable (he had left the country and not reacted to the summons); his statements made to the police were used as evidence against the applicant. QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Did the applicant have a fair trial satisfying the combined requirements of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention (see Schatschaschwili v. Germany [GC], no. 9154/10, ECHR 2015)?