CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 23 juin 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } Published on 15 July 2025   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 1877/25 Kyrylo PIDHAINYI against the Czech Republic lodged on 9 January 2025 communicated on 23 June 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns criminal proceedings in which the applicant, a Ukrainian national residing in the Czech Republic, was found guilty of forging his driver’s licence. He was sentenced to twenty months of suspended imprisonment and a twelve-month driving ban. The applicant, who was not represented by a lawyer, signed a waiver of his right to an interpreter for the purposes of simplified proceedings without an oral hearing before the judge ( zkrácené přípravné řízení ). The waiver was written in the Czech language and as a result of it, the final decision ( trestní příkaz ) was also served on him only in Czech. His constitutional appeal alleging a denial of a fair trial because he did not understand the waiver nor the decision in Czech was dismissed as manifestly ill-founded by the Constitutional Court decision no. II. ÚS 1606/24 delivered to the applicant on 16 September 2024. Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (e) of the Convention, the applicant complains that his right to a fair trial was breached as a result of being deprived of an interpreter following his signature of a waiver which he did not understand. He asserts that because he did not understand the proceedings, he was deprived of an opportunity to appeal the decision and demand a full trial with an oral hearing before the judge.     QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Were the criminal proceedings against the applicant fair as a whole, as required by Article 6 §§   1 and 3 (e) of the Convention (see Baytar v. Turkey , no. 45440/04, §§ 46-59, 14 October 2014, and Cuscani v. the United Kingdom , no. 32771/96, §§ 38-40, 24 September 2002)? In particular, was the waiver of the right to interpretation signed by the applicant knowing and intelligent (see Vizgirda v. Slovenia , no. 59868/08, § 87, 28 August 2018)?