CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 juin 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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2D3BC823 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Published on 3 July 2023   THIRD SECTION Application no. 59876/18 Konstantinos AGGELAKIS against Greece lodged on 7 December 2018 communicated on 12 June 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant was a member of the National Intelligence Service. After his removal from his post, a search operation was conducted in his office and certain allegedly confidential documents were seized. Criminal charges were pressed against the applicant for illegal intervention and possession of documents including sensitive personal data and he was convicted to ten months’ imprisonment. The applicant’s appeal on points of law was rejected by decision no. 180/2018 of the Court of Cassation delivered on 2   February 2018. The application concerns, under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) and (d) of the Convention, the refusal of the domestic courts to grant the applicant access to the documents seized in his office, for the possession of which he was convicted, and the refusal to call a witness as requested by him. He further complains about the lack of sufficient reasoning in the decision of the Court of Cassation. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant submit his requests to examine the seized documents and to include in the case-file the document from the General Aviation Hospital indicating the course of action in relation to psychometric tests following the end of recruitment competitions, in accordance with the domestic procedural rules?   2a.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him, in accordance with Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) and (d) of the Convention? In particular: (i) Were the principles of adversarial proceedings and equality of arms respected having regard to the fact that the documents seized from the applicant’s office did not form part of the case-file and the applicant was refused access to them? (ii) Was the applicant afforded adequate facilities to prepare his defence, as required by Article 6 § 3 (b) of the Convention, having regard to that refusal and the refusal to seek the document invoked by the applicant issued by the General Aviation Hospital on the course of action to be followed regarding the psychometric tests of candidates following the end of the recruitment competitions? (iii) Was the applicant able to obtain the attendance of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him, as required by Article   6 §   3 (d) of the Convention (see, for instance, Murtazaliyeva v. Russia [GC], no. 36658/05, § 139-168, 18 December 2018)? Did the domestic courts provide relevant reasons for dismissing his request to call a witness (see, for instance, Topić v. Croatia , no. 51355/10, § 42, 10 October 2013)? 2b.     Did the applicant in his cassation appeal put forward his complaints in relation to the alleged violation of his rights under the Convention in compliance with the applicable procedural requirements?   3.     Was the decision no. 180/2018 of the Court of Cassation sufficiently reasoned (see Talmane v. Latvia , no. 47938/07, § 29, 13 October 2016; and Zayidov v. Azerbaijan (no. 2) , no. 5386/10, § 91, 24 March 2022)?