CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 novembre 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 } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt }   Communicated on 8 November 2018   THIRD SECTION Application no. 48364/11 Gennadiy Nikolayevich PROSKURNIKOV against Russia lodged on 14 July 2011 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Gennadiy Nikolayevich Proskurnikov, is a Russian national, who was born in 1958 and lives in Pirogovskiy, Moscow Region. He is represented before the Court by Mr G. Zhuravlev, a lawyer practising in Moscow. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 6   May 2008 the acting head of the department in charge of tax crime ordered an audit in respect of the municipal hospital where the applicant held the office of chief physician. He assigned colonel K., lieutenant-colonel Kuz. and major R. to the case. The audit detected a number of violations and the applicant was charged with two counts of abuse of power and two counts of the use of budgetary funds for unauthorised purposes. On 26   October 2010 the Mytishchi Town Court of the Moscow Region found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to two years’ conditional sentence. The court based its findings on the witnesses’ statements and forensic evidence, including the expert report prepared by colonel K. The applicant maintained his innocence. He challenged the forensic expert’s findings arguing that colonel K. could not have been impartial given that she had taken part in the original audit leading to his indictment. It appears that the applicant’s request to appoint an independent expert was to no avail. On 3   February 2011 the Moscow Regional Court upheld the applicant’s conviction, in substance, on appeal. COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that the criminal proceedings against him were unfair. In particular, he complains that the trial court refused to appoint an independent forensic expert and relied on the findings of the police officer who had earlier taken part in the audit leading to the applicant’s indictment. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     As regards the forensic expert report prepared by colonel K., has the principle of equality of arms in the criminal proceedings against the applicant been respected as required by Article 6 §   1 of the Convention given that it was the inquiry conducted by K. that prompted the opening of the criminal case against the applicant? In particular, the parties are required to elaborate on the following:   (a)     the nature of the task entrusted to colonel K.;   (b)     Colonel K.’s hierarchical position in the police department and her role in the criminal proceedings against the applicant; and   (c)     the weight attached by the courts to colonel K.’s expert opinion.