CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 15 octobre 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s7ACB8D74 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt }   Communicated on 15 October 2018   THIRD SECTION Application no. 12487/11 Sergey Vasilyevich ZUYEV against Russia lodged on 30 January 2011 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the criminal proceedings against the applicant which ended with the judgment of the Moscow Regional Court on 9   August 2010. The applicant complains that he did not have adequate time or facilities for the preparation of his defence; that he could not have confidential contacts with his counsel during the trial; and that the criminal proceedings against him were unreasonably long. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him, in accordance with Article   6   §   1 of the Convention? In particular:   (a)     Was the applicant afforded adequate time and facilities to prepare his defence, as required by Article 6 § 3 (b) of the Convention? Did he have sufficient time to study the case-file before the trial and did he have sufficient time and facilities to prepare for the hearings of his case before the trial court?   (b)     Was the applicant able to defend himself, as required by Article   6 §   3   (c) of the Convention? Was the applicant provided with an opportunity to confer confidentially with his counsel during the trial?   2.     Was the length of the criminal proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article   6   §   1 of the Convention?