CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 janvier 2023

.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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s1DE04B9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } Published on 6 February 2023   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 38112/14 Vyacheslav Yuriyovych KROT against Ukraine lodged on 9 May 2014 communicated on 18 January 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the allegedly lengthy and unfair criminal proceedings against the applicant ending, following several reconsiderations, in his conviction of murder by the judgment of the Obukhiv Town Court of 19   December 2012, which was eventually upheld by the Kyiv Region Appellate Court and the Higher Specialised Court on Civil and Criminal Matters on 23   May 2013 and 14 November 2013 respectively. The conviction was based mainly on the statements of several individuals who witnessed the applicant and the victim fighting immediately before the latter having been stabbed to death on 10   April 2008, various forensic examinations and the applicant’s self-incriminating statements obtained during his questioning and other investigative actions conducted without a lawyer’s presence on various dates in April 2008. When represented by different lawyers at a later stage of the proceedings the applicant retracted those statements and argued that he had been forced by the police to waive his right to a lawyer. The applicant complains about a violation of Article   6   §§   1 and 3 (c) of the Convention.       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 and in the light of the procedural guarantees afforded by Article   6 §   3   (c) of the Convention?   2.     Was the length of the criminal proceedings in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?