CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 janvier 2020

.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 } .s7B6E77B2 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; 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 16 January 2020 Published on 3 February 2020   THIRD SECTION Application no. 58879/14 Gennadiy Ivanovich MYAKOTIN against Russia lodged on 7 August 2014 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Gennadiy Ivanovich Myakotin, is a Russian national, who was born in 1949 and lives in Shebekino, Belgorod Region. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 25   September 2013 road police found the applicant liable for a violation of traffic regulations and ordered him to pay the fine in the amount of 1,500   Russian roubles. According to the decision, the applicant was advised of the right to (1) have access to legal assistance, (2) make submissions, (3) appeal against the relevant decision, (4) submit evidence, (5) study the materials of the case file, and (6) file requests. The applicant admitted his guilt. On an unspecified date the applicant appealed against the decision of 25   September 2013 arguing, inter alia , that he had not been advised of the right to remain silent or the privilege against self-incrimination. On 16   December 2013 the Shebekino District Court of the Belgorod Region upheld the decision of 25   September 2013 on appeal. The court noted that the decision issued by the police remained silent as to whether the applicant had been informed of the right to remain silent and the privilege against self-incrimination and dismissed the applicant’s allegations relying on the statement made by the police officer who claimed that he had orally advised the applicant of those rights to remain silent and the privilege against self-incrimination. On 7   February 2014 the Belgorod Regional Court upheld the judgment of 16   December 2013. The court noted that, given that the applicant had not made any submissions as regards the offence he had been charged with, the fact that he had not been advised of the right to remain silent or the privilege against self-incrimination could not serve as a basis for quashing his conviction. COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that he was not advised of the right to remain silent or the privilege against self ‑ incrimination. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Did the criminal proceedings brought against the applicant, when considered as a whole, cure the police’s failure to notify him of the right to remain silent or the privilege against self-incrimination, when instituting the proceedings against him, as required by Article   6   §   1 of the Convention?