CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 décembre 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 } .sFBB1651C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s58699FB5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } Communicated on 2 December 2019   THIRD SECTION Application no. 78510/16 Dmitriy Viktorovich GOLOVANOV against Russia lodged on 5 December 2016 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Dmitriy Viktorovich Golovanov, is a Russian national, who was born in 1984 and lives in Nottingham. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. According to the official version of the events, on 14   June 2016 at 10:30 a.m. the police asked the applicant, who was flying a drone, to present his ID. The applicant refused and tried to escape. The police arrested him and took him to the police station. On the same date at 11:00 a.m. police officer K. ordered the applicant’s arrest and detention pending the consideration of the administrative case against him on the charge of having refused to obey the lawful order of a police officer. On 15   June 2016 the Gelendzhik Town Court of the Krasnodar Region found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to 10 days’ detention. The court examined the administrative case-file and questioned the applicant who maintained his innocence. He explained that two guards had told him that he had filmed a protected area and had asked him to go to the parking lot where two policemen, without any further explanation, took his passport and ordered him to go to the police station with them. On 16   June 2016 the applicant lodged an appeal against the judgment of 15   June 2016. He complained, inter alia , that he had not been informed of the charges against him and that the court at first level of jurisdiction should have questioned T. who had been present on site and could have confirmed his version of the events. He also asked the appellate court to ensure his participation in the hearing by means of a video link. On 20   June 2016 the Krasnodar Regional Court upheld the applicant’s conviction on appeal. It appears that the appellate court did not consider the applicant’s request as regards his participation in the proceedings or the questioning of witness T. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 6   §   3   (d) of the Convention that the domestic courts failed (1) to ensure his participation in the appeal proceedings or (2) to obtain attendance of witness T. on his behalf. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant able to participate effectively in the appeal hearing of 20   June 2016 before the Krasnodar Regional Court, as required by Article   6 §§   1 and 3   (c) of the Convention?   2.     Was the applicant able to obtain the attendance of witness T. on his behalf, as required by Article   6 §   3   (d) of the Convention?