CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 29 avril 2025

.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 } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 19 May 2025   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 51682/17 Andriy Stanislavovych AVRAMYCH against Ukraine lodged on 4 July 2017 communicated on 29 April 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns administrative-offence proceedings against the applicant. More specifically, on 7 February 2017 he came to the premises of the Tyvriv Town Court and claimed access to the case file in unrelated civil proceedings. Having received a negative response, the applicant got frustrated. As subsequently established, he was shouting obscenities, slamming doors open and disrupting court hearings. At 4   p.m. on that day, the police drew up an administrative-offence report stating that the applicant had committed petty hooliganism. He was also placed in administrative detention. At about 7   p.m. on the same day, a judge delivered a decision finding the applicant guilty as charged and sentencing him to six days’ administrative arrest (enforceable immediately). Having served that penalty, the applicant lodged an appeal. It was rejected on 3 July 2017 by the Vinnytsya Regional Court of Appel. The applicant complains that the administrative-offence proceedings against him fell short of a number of fair-trial guarantees under Article   6 of the Convention, notably the right to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence.       QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him, in accordance with Article 6 of the Convention? In   particular, was he afforded adequate time and facilities to prepare his defence, as required by Article   6   § 3 (b) of the Convention (see Kornev and Karpenko v. Ukraine , no.   17444/04, 21   October 2010, and Mikhaylova v.   Ukraine , no. 10644/08, 6 March 2018)?