CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 23 février 2018

.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 } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 23 February 2018   THIRD SECTION Application no. 78168/13 Valeriy Mikhaylovich VANEYEV against Russia lodged on 8 November 2013 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Valeriy Mikhaylovich Vaneyev, is a Russian national, who was born in 1949 and lives in Syktyvkar. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 22   August 2012 the applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident. His car collided with Sh.’s car. As a result Sh. sustained bodily injuries. On the same date a road police inspector opened an administrative investigation into the accident. Subsequently the administrative case was closed. On 19   October 2012 the police opened a criminal case against the applicant on the charges of causing bodily injury by dangerous driving. On an unspecified date the investigation was completed and the case was transferred to Omutninsk District Court of the Kirov Region. The applicant asked judge K. of the District Court to which the case was assigned to withdraw from the case given that Sh.’s wife was a judge of the same court. On 8   February 2013 the District Court rejected the applicant’s challenge of the bench noting that judge K. was neither a relative nor a friend of Sh. On the same date the District Court sitting in a single judge formation presided by judge K. found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to one year and four months’ limitation of liberty. On 14   May 2013 the Kirov Regional Court upheld the applicant’s conviction on appeal. COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article 6   §   1 of the Convention that the District Court which determined a criminal charge against him was not impartial given that the wife of the victim of the crime he was accused of was a judge of the same court. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Was the Omutninsk District Court of the Kirov Region when determining the criminal charge against the applicant impartial as required by Article   6 §   1 of the Convention (see, for example, Morice v. France [GC], no. 29369/10, §§   73-78, ECHR 2015, and Mitrov v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no. 45959/09, §§   49-56, 2 June 2016)?