CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 janvier 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .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 } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } Communicated on 20 January 2020   Published on 10 February 2020   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 10549/18 Anton Vitaliyovych PODVEZKO against Ukraine lodged on 21 February 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant was convicted of several counts of fraud. The case concerns his complaints that: (i) Ms   V.P.R., one of the victims of the acts of which the applicant was convicted, was not examined at the trial, and (ii) the composition of the appellate court that upheld the applicant’s conviction had not been an independent and impartial tribunal established by law, within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, on account of the fact that the case was reassigned, allegedly in breach of established rules, from a judge to whom the case had initially been attributed by the electronic case assignment system, to different judges who eventually decided the case.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant’s right to a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him, guaranteed by Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention, respected? In particular, was the applicant able to examine Ms   V.P.R., as required by Article   6 § 3   (d) of the Convention?   2.     Was the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal, which examined the applicant’s case, an independent and impartial “tribunal established by law”, as required by Article   6 §   1 of the Convention, in particular on account of the fact that the case was reassigned from Judge M.I.M., to whom the case had initially been attributed by the electronic case assignment system, to different judges who eventually decided on the appeal?