CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 juillet 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .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 16 July 2020 Published on 3 August 2020   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 56440/15 Johan SNIJDERS against the Netherlands lodged on 6 November 2015 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the use in evidence of a statement by an anonymous witness, who had been given the status of threatened witness ( bedreigde getuige ). The threatened witness was heard by the investigating judge; the applicant and the prosecutor were granted the opportunity to put questions in writing. The applicant was convicted of murder. The applicant complains under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention that his right to examine this witness was wrongly restricted while his/her statement was decisive for his conviction and the restrictions were insufficiently compensated for.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him in accordance with Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention?   In particular: 1.     Was there a good reason to grant the witness the status of threatened witness? The Government are requested to describe in detail the procedures on granting the status of threatened witness and on hearing that witness, enacted in Articles   226a – 226f of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2.     Was the evidence provided by the threatened witness the sole or decisive basis for the applicant’s conviction? 3.     Were there sufficient counterbalancing factors including strong procedural safeguards to compensate for the handicaps allegedly faced by the defence as a result of the admission of the statement of the threatened witness, in order to ensure that the trial, judged as a whole, was fair?