CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 novembre 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 8 November 2017   THIRD SECTION Application no. 37397/15 Yevgeniy Nikolayevich ZUBENKO against Russia lodged on 10 July 2015 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the Traffic Department’s application for review under Article 30.12 of the Code of Administrative Offences (CAO) and the reviewing court’s decision to set aside the final acquittal in respect of the applicant. In the resumed proceedings the applicant was sentenced to a fine and suspension of his driving licence. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Was there a violation of Article 6 of the Convention on account of the quashing of the final acquittal in respect of the applicant by way of the review procedure under Article 30.12 of the CAO (see Moreira Ferreira v.   Portugal (no. 2) [GC], no. 19867/12, §§ 62-65, 11 July 2017)? Was the quashing justified with reference to a “fundamental defect” within the meaning of Article 4 § 2 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention?   2.     Was there a violation of Article 6 of the Convention because the review application had not been communicated to the applicant and he had not been afforded an adequate opportunity to comment on it?