CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 26 mai 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sECB3FADA { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase }       FIFTH SECTION Application no. 23040/07 Vasyl Vasylyovych GELETEY against Ukraine lodged on 7 May 2007 The facts and complaints in this case have been summarised in the Court’s initial Statement of Facts and Questions to the Parties, which is available in HUDOC. QUESTIONS 1.     When did the applicant’s relatives learn about his arrest?   2.     Why could the investigative measures taken in respect of the applicant on 22 and 23 August 2004, namely his questionings and the reconstruction of events, not be postponed until the arrival of Y.S., the lawyer of his own choosing? 3.     Why did the authorities not contact Y.S. after the applicant’s arrest, or give the applicant a list of lawyers for him to choose a representative instead of directly deciding to appoint lawyer B.? 4.     Why did lawyer B. leave after the applicant’s first questioning on 22   August 2004 and failed to be present during the reconstruction of events on the same date? Was B. invited to participate in the reconstruction? 5.     Was the fact that lawyer B. simultaneously represented the applicant and one of his co-defendants compatible with the requirements of Article 6 § 3 taken in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?