CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 février 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 28 February 2022   THIRD SECTION Application no. 63741/19 Tatyana Yuryevna KRUPINA against Russia lodged on 29 November 2019 communicated on 8 February 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s conviction of embezzlement. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against her, in accordance with Article   6   §§   1 and 3 (d) of the Convention? In particular, as regards the trial court’ s refusal to question expert Yu. or to admit reports by experts S. and Z. (dated 20   December 2017 and 15   January 2018 respectively) commissioned by the defence into evidence, was the applicant provided with an opportunity to challenge forensic evidence collected by the prosecution (see Khodorkovskiy and   Lebedev v. Russia, nos.   11082/06 and 13772/05, §§   17-35, 25 July 2013, and Matytsina v. Russia , no. 58428/10, §§   166-208, 27 March 2014)?   2.     Did the appellate court comply with its obligation to give reasons for its decision and to reply to key arguments raised of the applicant, including those addressed in question   1 above (see Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (no.   2) [GC], no. 19867/12, §   84, 11   July 2017)?