CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 novembre 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 }   Communicated on 8 November 2018   THIRD SECTION Application no. 50734/12 Viktor Aleksandrovich USPENSKIY against Russia lodged on 24 July 2012 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE On 22 November 2011 a police inspector convicted the applicant of the offence under Article 12.3 of the Code of Administrative Offences (CAO) because he had had no driving licence on him on 16 November 2011. On 26   January 2012 a district court took the final decision sentencing him to detention for the offence under Article 19.3 of CAO while omitting the trial court’s reference to disobeying a police order to submit to a breathalyser test on 16 November 2011 and, instead, convicting him for failing to show his vehicle documents on that date. On 14   March 2012 he was convicted under Article 12.26 of the CAO on account of the refusal to undergo the above breathalyser test. Subsequently, the judgment in this third case was upheld on appeal and in the review procedure. The judgment in the second case was also upheld in the review procedure. QUESTIONs tO THE PARTIES 1.     Was there a violation of Article   4 § 1 of Protocol No.   7 to the Convention (compare with A and B v. Norway [GC], nos. 24130/11 and   29758/11, §§   121-24 and 131-34, ECHR 2016? In particular, did Russian law require in 2011 and 2012 the application of the ne bis in idem principle to bar prosecution for an administrative offence on account of a final judgment in another CAO case (see, mutatis mutandis , section 33 of ruling no. 28 of 26 June 2018 by the Plenary Supreme Court of Russia)?   2.     Was there a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (a) of the Convention as regards the offence under Article 19.3 of the CAO (see Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 62, ECHR 1999 ‑ II; Boldea v. Romania , no.   19997/02, § 30, 15 February 2007; and Hadjianastassiou v. Greece , 16   December 1992, § 33, Series A no. 252)?   3.     As to the case concerning Article 12.26 of the CAO, was there a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention on account of the applicant’s absence from the trial and the restriction on appeal to contest the adverse written evidence by way of examining the police officers and attesting witnesses Sa. and Og.? Did the applicant validly waive his procedural rights under the above provisions?