CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 1 avril 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 } .sB24F5E38 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } Published on 19 April 2021   FIRST SECTION Application no. 72520/17 Janusz TOBIJAŃSKI against Poland lodged on 29 September 2017 communicated on 1 April 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged unfairness of criminal proceedings against the applicant owing to the fact that he could not attend the only hearing held before the court of appeal. The Częstochowa Regional Court convicted the applicant of the use of a document attesting untruth ( poświadczenie nieprawdy ) and forgery. The applicant’s appeal referred to the assessment of evidence and the fact that the court of first instance did not hear evidence from certain witnesses. The hearing before the Katowice Court of Appeal was fixed for 2 October 2015. On 1 October 2015 the applicant asked the Katowice Court of Appeal to adjourn the hearing on the ground that he had been urgently admitted to hospital the day before. He also stressed that he was not represented by a lawyer in the appeal proceedings. His submission was supported by a certificate issued by the hospital and a statement from a medical consultant. At the hearing held on 2   October 2015 the Katowice Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s request on the grounds that he had not submitted a certificate prepared by a court appointed doctor. It further upheld the judgment amending only the legal qualification of the offence in question. A cassation appeal submitted by the Ombudsman on the applicant’s behalf was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 29   March   2017 (served on the applicant on 14 April 2017). The applicant relies on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges) against him, in accordance with Article   6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention? In particular, as a matter of fair trial, could the issues determined by the Katowice Court of Appeal be properly examined without hearing the applicant directly (see, for example, Seliwiak v.   Poland , no.   3818/04, §§ 58-64, 21   July 2009)?