CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 29 mai 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .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 } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase }   Communicated on 29 May 2017   THIRD SECTION Application no. 30452/09 Dmitriy Andreyevich KLISHCHENKO against Russia lodged on 19 February 2009 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE On 31 January 2008 the applicant was convicted of an administrative offence, with reference to the record of administrative offence, a written report from Officer V. and an intoxication report compiled by Doctor B. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES Having regard, in particular, to the lack of a prosecuting party in the case and the absence of an opportunity to examine V. and B.: -     Did the applicant have a fair hearing by an impartial tribunal in the determination of the administrative-offence charge against him, in compliance with the requirements of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3(b)-(d) of the Convention? Was the applicant afforded an adequate opportunity to contest the written evidence against him? -     If not, were the alleged shortcomings cured on appeal? Did the appeal court carry out a full re-hearing of the case (Article 30.6 of the Code of Administrative Offences)?