CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 juin 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s3D5CD740 { width:249.97pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sD37F5C3B { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }     Published on 8 July 2024   THIRD SECTION Application no. 59835/19 Dimos EFSTATHOPOULOS against Greece lodged on 9 November 2019 communicated on 18 June 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the fairness of criminal proceedings due to the non-attendance of a prosecution witness at the appeal hearing. By judgment no. 22804/2017 of the Athens Misdemeanour Court, the applicant, a surgeon at a public hospital, was convicted for having accepted a bribe and for breach of duty and was sentenced to a one-year suspended prison sentence. The court held that the applicant had asked N.S., his patient, for a 300 euros (EUR) bribe to perform an operation. N.S. reported this to the police, which supplied him with marked banknotes. N.S. gave the banknotes to the applicant after the operation and the police arrested the applicant, who was found with the marked banknotes. The court considered notably the testimonies of four prosecution witnesses which were examined during the oral hearing, including N.S., as well as other evidence that included the marked banknotes. By judgment no. 4170/2017, the Athens Misdemeanour Court of Appeal upheld the conviction of the applicant and reduced the sentence to a ten-month suspended prison sentence. During the appeal hearing, the applicant requested an adjournment because N.S., who was a material witness, was absent. The court rejected this request on the grounds that the evidence available before it was sufficient to adjudicate. The applicant appealed in cassation, complaining notably of the non-attendance of N.S. at the appeal hearing and of the rejection of the relevant adjournment request. By judgment no. 2058/2018, the Court of Cassation rejected the cassation appeal. Regarding the issue of the non-attendance of N.S. at the appeal hearing, the Court of Cassation dismissed the respective ground of cassation as unfounded, finding that the appellate court provided sufficient reasoning in rejecting the applicant’s adjournment request. The applicant alleges a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d), on account of the non-attendance of N.S. at the appeal hearing.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Given that the applicant had no opportunity to examine N.S. at the hearing before the Athens Misdemeanour Court of Appeal, did the applicant have a fair trial satisfying the combined requirements of Article   6 §§ 1   and § 3   (d) of the Convention (see the relevant principles in Al-Khawaja and Tahery v.   the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, §§   118-47, 15   December 2011, as refined in Schatschaschwili v. Germany [GC], no.   9154/10, §§ 110-31, ECHR 2015)?