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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 11 February 2021 Published on 1 March 2021   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 77801/13 Valeriy Oleksandrovych VASYLKOV against Ukraine lodged on 27 November 2013 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the administrative-offence proceedings against the applicant (driving under the influence of alcohol). The applicant complains that he had been informed of the appellate court’s hearing in his case the day after it had taken place. While the applicant relies on Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention, his complaint falls to be examined under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention only. 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, in particular, given his absence from the court hearing of 21   August 2013 before the Kyiv Court of Appeal (see Sejdovic v. Italy [GC], no.   56581/00, ECHR 2006 ‑ II; Nadtochiy v. Ukraine , no.   7460/03, 15   May 2008; and Igor Pascari v. The Republic of Moldova , no.   25555/10, 3   August 2016)?   2.     Was the applicant duly informed of the hearing of 21 August 2013 before the Kyiv Court of Appeal?