CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 mars 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 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sB217F55C { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s65E06E64 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 3 March 2021 Published on 22 March 2021   THIRD SECTION Application no. 41681/20 Vladimir Leonidovich KOVALEV against Russia lodged on 3 September 2020 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns criminal proceedings against the applicant sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment for committing a sex crime in respect of a minor. The witness D.L., a minor at the time of the applicant’s trial, was not cross-examined in open court and her pre-trial statements were read out as evidence.     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 of the Convention (see Al ‑ Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos.   26766/05 and 22228/06, §§ 118-51, 15 December 2011, and Schatschaschwili v.   Germany [GC], no. 9154/10, §§ 113, 116, 15 December 2015)? In particular, (a)     Was the applicant able to examine witness D.L. testifying against him as required by Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention? (b)     Was the national authorities’ decision not to cross-examine D.L. in open court based on the recommendations of a medical or a psychological expert examination (see Przydział v. Poland , no. 15487/08, § 48, 24 May 2016; and as example of application of the principles, Kiba and Others v.   Russia (dec.) [Commitee], nos. 38047/08 and 2 others, §   14, 17 April 2018)? (c)     Were the submissions of D.L. sole or decisive for the applicant’s conviction?