CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 15 mars 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 }   Communicated on 15 March 2018   THIRD SECTION Application no. 13764/15 Leonid Sergeyevich MARTYNYUK against Russia lodged on 2 March 2015 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant, a political activist and a video-blogger, was sentenced to ten days’ detention under Article 20.1 of the Code of Administrative Offences (CAO) (minor hooliganism). The trial court stated, in a summary manner, that his guilt was confirmed by the available evidence, namely the record of administrative offence, pre-trial written statements from police officers and eyewitnesses, and the record of administrative arrest. The appeal court examined the written pleadings and endorsed the trial court’s judgment, adding that the applicant’s guilt was also confirmed by “other evidentiary material in the file”. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (compare Frumkin v. Russia , no.   74568/12, §§ 165-66, ECHR 2016 (extracts))? In particular: -     Was there a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b)-(d) on account of the non-notification of the defence about the appeal hearing and because of the de facto absence of an oral hearing? -     Was the applicant afforded a reasonable opportunity to present his case and this under conditions that did not place him at a substantial disadvantage vis-à-vis his opponent (if any), in particular by way of contesting the adverse evidence and adducing his own evidence at the trial and/or on appeal? Did Russian law require a public operator’s compliance with a defence lawyer’s request to provide - with(out) any liability for non ‑ compliance - a security-camera recording for the purpose of a trial on an administrative charge? If not, was Article 6 of the Convention violated on account of the court’s refusal to assist the defence in adducing this potentially key piece of exculpatory evidence? In addressing the above questions the parties are invited to weigh the following considerations: whether the courts provided any reasoning for dismissing the motion to require submission of the video recording and the request to examine as witnesses Kos., Kol. and officers B. and O.; whether the court decisions contained an adequate assessment of evidence, including exculpating evidence; the lack of a prosecuting party and the role of a trial judge and appeal judges in a CAO case; whether Russian law provided for a possibility to examine or have examined arresting officers at a court hearing; whether the record of administrative offence was treated as a piece of evidence confirming the defendant’s guilt.   2.     Did the absence of suspensive effect of an appeal against the sentence of administrative detention undermine the applicant’s right of appeal to have his conviction or sentence reviewed as required by Article 2 of Protocol   No.   7 to the Convention (compare Shvydka v. Ukraine , no.   17888/12 , §§ 48-55, 30 October 2014)?