CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 février 2021

.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 } .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 11 February 2021 Published on 1 March 2021   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 73978/14 Dmytro Ivanovych LAN against Ukraine lodged on 18 November 2014 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE On 7 April 2007 the applicant, seventeen years old at the time, gave a statement to the police, in the absence of a lawyer, confessing to a murder. Later on the same day an arrest report was drawn up and he repeated his confession in the presence of a lawyer. Later he retracted it. He alleged that he had already been in police custody when he had given the initial confession and that the police had extracted it in breach of his right to a lawyer. The applicant was eventually convicted of murder, the courts relying in part on his initial confession as well as on a range of other evidence, most notably the discovery of the victim’s phone in the applicant’s home. In a final decision of 15 May 2014 (notified on 22 May) the High Specialised Court for Civil and Criminal Matters upheld his conviction. The applicant complains that his right to a lawyer and his right to trial within a reasonable time, under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention, were breached.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and in light of the procedural guarantees afforded by Article   6 §   3 (c) of the Convention? In particular was the applicant’s right to a lawyer respected in the connection with the taking of his first statement to the police on 7 April 2007?   2.     Was the length of the criminal proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article   6 §   1 of the Convention?