CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 avril 2019

.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 3 April 2019   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 20899/09 Yasaman Atabala Kyzy MAMEDOVA against Ukraine lodged on 8 April 2009 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns administrative offence proceedings against the applicant, a private entrepreneur at the time. More specifically, on 8   October 2008 the Severodonetsk City Court found her guilty of trade of tobacco goods without a licence and fined her UAH 340 (about EUR 50), with confiscation of the goods in question for a total of UAH 5,598 (equal to about EUR 770). The court relied on the local tax authority’s report on the inspection of the applicant’s shop of 23 September 2008. Its decision was final and not amenable to appeal. According to the applicant, she found out about the hearing only on the eve and, not having been provided with access to the case file, was not able to duly prepare her defence. While it was indicated in the court decision that the applicant was present in the hearing, she contested that statement as not truthful. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant afforded adequate time and facilities to prepare her defence, as required by Article 6 § 3 (b) of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Kornev and Karpenko v. Ukraine , no. 17444/04, 21   October 2010)?   2.     Was the applicant afforded the right of appeal envisaged by Article   2 §   1 of Protocol No.   7 (see Gurepka v. Ukraine , no. 61406/00, 6   September 2005, and Gurepka v. Ukraine (no. 2) , no. 38789/04, 8   April 2010)? Did the absence of an appeal in the present case fall within the exceptions laid down by Article   2 §   2 of Protocol No.   7?