CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 30 mars 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold }   Published on 19 April 2021   THIRD SECTION Application no. 6794/21 Vitaliy Yuryevich SAFONOV against Russia lodged on 12 December 2020 communicated on 30 March 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application, submitted with reference to Article 6 §§ 1, 3 (c) and (d) of the Convention, concerns the applicant’s absence from the first-instance hearing in the administrative offence proceedings and the resulting inability of the applicant to examine a victim, whose statements formed part of the basis for the applicant’s conviction. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge against him, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention?   2.     Was the applicant’s absence from the trial hearing compatible with the requirements of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention? Was he afforded an effective opportunity to participate in the trial hearing in his administrative case either in person or through legal representation? Was the applicant’s absence at trial remedied on appeal?   3.     Was the applicant able to examine witnesses against him, in particular the victim, as required by Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention?