CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 novembre 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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 3 November 2020 Published on 23 November 2020   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 72526/13 Nataliya Petrivna GLUZD against Ukraine lodged on 14 November 2013 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the fairness of proceedings in which the applicant’s guilt for a traffic accident was determined. The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention, that she was not informed of the hearing before the Kyiv Court of Appeal of 9 July 2013, where new evidence was submitted by the opposing party. Following the examination, the Kyiv Court of Appeal quashed the decision of the first-instance court, given in the applicant’s favour, found the applicant guilty of causing the traffic accident and closed the case in view of the statutory limitation period. The applicant further complained the Kyiv Court of Appeal did not state the reasons why it had admitted new evidence in the proceedings.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Having regard to the appellate court’s decision closing the case in view of the statutory limitation period, can the applicant claim to be a victim of a violation of the Convention, within the meaning of Article   34?   2.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge against her, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention, given her absence from the hearing before the Kyiv Court of Appeal of 9 July 2013?   3.     Was the applicant duly informed of the hearing of 9 July 2013 before the Kyiv Court of Appeal?   4.     Was the applicant able to defend herself in the Kyiv Court of Appeal, as required by Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention?   5. Had the Kyiv Court of Appeal provided reasons for its decision to admit new evidence, i.e. expert report of 20 June 2013?   The Government are requested to submit all relevant documents concerning the applicant’s notification of the hearing before the Kyiv Court of Appeal of 9 July 2013 and a transcript of the said hearing.