CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 octobre 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 }   Communicated on 9 October 2018   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 21971/10 Mykola Stepanovych SALOGUB against Ukraine lodged on 7 April 2010 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The domestic courts, relying on a traffic police report, found the applicant guilty of driving a motorbike under the influence of alcohol in breach of Article 130 § 1 of the Code on Administrative Offences (punishable by a fine, or correctional works, or administrative detention). The applicant was sentenced with a fine of 3,000 hryvnias (UAH) (which at the time was equal to about 250 euros (EUR)). According to the applicant, it was a significant amount for him, a student at the time. The applicant argued in the court hearing that he had been made sign that report without being able to see its contents and being convinced that it concerned the absence of a safety helmet. According to him, his passenger, Sh., could confirm his version of events. Furthermore, the applicant maintained that the report contained signatures of two persons who had not been present at the time when it had been drawn up. The first-instance court rejected his request to summon Sh., as well as the above-mentioned two persons, as witnesses in the court hearing. Furthermore, the appellate court conducted its hearing in the absence of the applicant and allegedly without having notified him of the time of that hearing. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES Was Article 6 of the Convention under its criminal head applicable to the proceedings in the applicant’s cases? If so:   Did the applicant have a fair hearing, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was he able to examine the witnesses against him and get attendance of the witness on his behalf, as required by Article   6 § 3 (d)?   Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge against him, given his absence from the hearing of the appellate court? Had he been duly notified of that hearing?   If such was the case, the Government are asked to produce a copy of the applicant’s summons to the hearing of the Chernivtsi Regional Court of Appeal of 28 December 2009, indicating the date of its receipt by the applicant.