CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 décembre 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 7 December 2020 Published on 11 January 2021   FIFTH SECTION Applications nos. 7585/12 and 23746/14 Asan Dzhelyalovich KARAUMEROV against Ukraine and Olena Valeriyivna SMYK against Ukraine lodged on 23 January 2012 and 14 March 2014 respectively SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the applicants’ complaints, under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention, that their rights not to incriminate themselves and to a lawyer had been breached because their statements made in the absence of a lawyer and of appropriate safeguards against self-incrimination formed a basis for their conviction. The first applicant, Mr Karaumerov was convicted of drug dealing. The domestic courts relied in part on his incriminating statements made in the absence of a lawyer and while the applicant had the status of a witness, meaning that he was warned of criminal liability for refusal to testify and false statements. The second applicant, Ms Smyk, was convicted of theft. The domestic courts relied on the applicant’s incriminating statements made in the absence of a lawyer. The High Specialised Court for Civil and Criminal Matters upheld Mr   Karaumerov’s conviction on 8 December 2011 and Ms   Smyk’s conviction on 26 September 2013.     QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against them, in accordance with Article   6 §§   1 and 3 of the Convention? In particular, was their right to defend themselves through legal assistance of their own choosing, within the meaning of Article   6 §   3   (c) of the Convention, respected?