CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 1 décembre 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 18 December 2023   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 22391/22 Martin WIRSING against Germany lodged on 29 April 2022 communicated on 1 December 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE On 7 August 2019 the police found drugs on F.’s property. Before the investigating judge, F. claimed that a part of the drugs belonged to the applicant. At the applicant’s trial, F. withdrew his statement incriminating the applicant and refused to testify. Instead, the court heard the investigating judge as a witness. Based on her testimony regarding F.’s statement, the court convicted the applicant of drug trafficking. The applicant appealed, to no avail. The applicant complained under Article 6 §§ 1, 3 (d) of the Convention of the fact that he had been unable to examine F. and of the lack of counterbalancing factors to compensate for this handicap. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has the applicant’s right to a fair trial, including the right to examine or have examined witnesses against him under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention, been breached in that neither the applicant nor his counsel had an opportunity, at any stage of the proceedings, to examine F.? In particular, having regard to the principles established by the Court notably in its judgment in the case of Schatschaschwili v.   Germany   ([GC], no.   9154/10, ECHR   2015): (a)     Was there a good reason for admitting as evidence the pre-trial statement made by F. before the investigating judge and subsequently presented by that judge at the trial? (b)     Was the applicant’s conviction based solely or to a decisive or significant extent on the evidence provided by F.? (c)     Were there sufficient counterbalancing factors to compensate for the difficulties caused to the defence as a result of the fact that it had been unable to question F.? In particular, what measures were taken, and which additional counterbalancing measures could have been taken, by the domestic prosecution authorities and by the domestic courts to safeguard the applicant’s defence rights?