CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 15 mai 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 5 June 2023   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 7738/14 Alevtina Fedorovna GURYANOVA against Ukraine lodged on 24 November 2013 communicated on 15 May 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged breach of the principle of equality of arms. On 4 April 2013 the Higher Specialised Court for Civil and Criminal Matters held the hearing in the criminal case against the applicant in her and her representative’s absence, but in the presence of a prosecutor. That court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law and upheld the decision of the Zhytomyr Regional Court of Appeal of 27 November 2012, convicting her of fraud to five years of imprisonment with the confiscation of her property. She was present at the hearings of the court of first instance and of the court of appeal. The applicant complains that she received the summons to the hearing only on 17 April 2013, and that consequently she was denied a fair trial contrary to Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair trial in the determination of the criminal charges against her, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, given her absence from the court hearing of 4 April 2013 before the Higher Specialised Court for Civil and Criminal Matters (see Sejdovic v.   Italy [GC], no. 56581/00, § 81ECHR 2006 ‑ II; Zhuk v. Ukraine , no.   45783/05, §§ 29-35, 21 October 2010; Loboda v. Ukraine , no. 8865/06, §§   50-52, 17   November 2016)?   2.     Was the applicant duly informed of the hearing of 4 April 2013 before the Higher Specialised Court for Civil and Criminal Matters?