CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 septembre 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 11 September 2019   THIRD SECTION Applications nos. 28081/19 and 29664/19 L.V. against Slovakia and application 29664/19 Roman PAULUS against Slovakia lodged on 15 May 2019, 3 July 2019 and 28 May 2019 respectively SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES The applications concern (un)fairness of criminal proceedings against two applicants who were found guilty of premeditated murder and sentenced to 22 and 25 years’ imprisonment respectively. Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention, the applicants complain that the domestic authorities, i.e. the investigative bodies and the general courts, did not hear the witnesses they had requested to testify in their favour in both the pre-trial proceedings and during the trial. The applicants wanted to have them examined in order to clarify the circumstances of the case and to explain the relations between the individuals involved, as well as to contest a witness statement on which their guilt was eventually established. They allege that, when establishing the facts of the case and their guilt, the courts relied solely on the incriminating evidence adduced by the Public Prosecutor and did not give sufficient reasons for refusing to examine any of the evidence proposed by the defence. In their view, this breached the principle of equality of arms and rendered the proceedings unfair. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Did the applicants have a fair hearing, namely in respect of the principle of equality of arms, as required by Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention? In particular, did the domestic courts consider the relevance of evidence (incl. witness testimonies) adduced by the defence and provide sufficient reasons for their decisions not to examine it at trial (see, mutatis mutandis , Murtazaliyeva v. Russia [GC], no. 36658/05, §§ 139-168, 18   December 2018)?