CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 janvier 2022

.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 } Published on 7 February 2022   FIRST SECTION Application no. 232/16 Panagiotis KANELLOPOULOS against Greece lodged on 18 December 2015 communicated on 17 January 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s conviction for passive bribery in breach of his duties as a civil servant. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Court of Cassation arguing that the appeal proceedings were subject to absolute nullity because the Court of Appeal had proceeded to the reading-out of two sworn pretrial statements while no objective and unsurmountable obstacle prevented the witnesses concerned – whose examination was crucial to the proving of his innocence –   from attending the trial. The Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal on the grounds that neither the applicant nor his lawyers had objected to the reading-out of the two statements although they had had the possibility to do so. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Did the fact that the applicant’s lawyers had not objected to the reading ‑ out of the two sworn pretrial statements at the appeal proceedings imply a waiver of his right to examine witnesses as guaranteed by Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention (see Murtazaliyeva v. Russia [GC], no. 36658/05, §§   114 ‑ 128, 18   December 2018)?