CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 juin 2018

.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 } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .sAC521AF { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sD8E76205 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s901B8D2A { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; list-style-position:inside } .s97296F0 { width:0.81pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s98EC6975 { page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; list-style-position:inside } .s33141CA1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sF3108B01 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s86731D0A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt }   Communicated on 20 June 2018   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 30256/15 Artem Vasylyovych FASOLKO against Ukraine and 2 other applications (see list appended) STATEMENT OF FACTS The list of the applicants is set out in the Appendix. The examination of the applicants’ criminal cases has been disrupted by the situation prevailing in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea since 2014. The applicants allege that the Ukrainian authorities have not taken appropriate steps to advance the examination of their cases under the circumstances. Specific details of the applicants’ cases, as submitted by them, are set out in the Appendix. COMPLAINTS The applicants complain that the Ukrainian authorities’ failure to examine their cases under the circumstances breached the provisions of the Convention set out in the Appendix. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the prolonged failure to examine the applicants’ cases?   2.     In application no. 59524/15, has the applicant been afforded the right of appeal guaranteed by Article 2 § 1 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention, on account of the prolonged failure to examine her appeals?   3.   In applications nos. 59524/15 and 44291/17, do the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their other communicated complaints, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?   Appendix   No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant Date of birth Place of residence or detention Nationality Represented by Summary of the facts Complaints to be communicated   30256/15 03/06/2015 Artem Vasylyovych FASOLKO 24/11/1980 Zhytomyr Ukrainian   On 15 May 2012 criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant on suspicion of treason and he was arrested. On 19 September 2013 the Court of Appeal of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (ARC) upheld the decision of the Simferopol Zaliznychny District Court convicting the applicant of high treason and abuse of authority and sentencing him to ten years’ imprisonment. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law and asked that the time-limit for appeal be extended. On 22 August 2014 the Kyiv Pechersky District Court extended the time-limit. On 5 July 2016 the Kyiv Podilsky District Court restored the case file. The High Specialised Civil and Criminal Court (HSC) scheduled several hearings in the applicant’s case. On 3 January 2018 the applicant was informed that his case was being forwarded to the Supreme Court due to the dissolution of the HSC. Art. 6 § 1.   59524/15 17/11/2015 Mavilye Abdulivna MATYCH 25/03/1966 Odessa Ukrainian Anastasiya Romanivna MARTYNOVSKA On 18 October 2013 the applicant was sentenced by the Simferopol District Court of the ARC to seven years of imprisonment for a drug offence. On 9 January 2014 this decision was upheld by Court of Appeal of the ARC. The applicant and her representative appealed on points of law. On 13 March 2014 the HSC initiated review proceedings and requested the case file from the trial court. On 1 May 2015 the HSC informed the applicant that a hearing in her case would be held once the HSC receives the case file from the trial court. Art. 6 § 1; Art. 2 of Protocol No.   7; Art. 13.   44291/17 13/06/2017 Oleg Gennadiyovych GENSHAFT 30/11/1975 Kyiv United States of America Vitaliy Valentynovych SHEVCHUK On 21 June 2013 criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant on charges of disobedience to the police officer, in connection with some construction work conducted in 2013 in Alupka, the ARC. On 22 November 2013 the bill of indictment was lodged against the applicant before the Yalta Court of the ARC. Subsequently the jurisdiction over the applicant’s case was transferred to the Kyiv Desnyansky Distict Court (ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal of 17 November 2016). The applicant initially applied to the Desnyansky Court for discontinuation of the proceedings but later withdrew his application and on 3 February 2016 this withdrawal was approved by the Desnyansky Court. The applicant attempted to re-submit a copy of the bill of indictment to the Desnyansky Court, in an attempt to advance the proceedings. However, on 30 December 2016 the Desnyansky Court returned the bill of indictment to the applicant’s lawyer. On 1 March 2017 the Kyiv Court of Appeal, in a final ruling, upheld the decision of the Desnyansky Court. The courts reasoned that the applicant’s lawyer had no authority to pass the bill of indictment to the court as the prosecutor’s office was the only party entitled to do so. Art. 6 § 1; Art. 13.