CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 juillet 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 } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 26 July 2021   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 61125/19 Samir Safssafi against the Netherlands lodged on 20 November 2019 communicated on 7 July 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 §   3   (d) of the Convention that his conviction of fraud and of unlawfully having entered a dwelling in use by another person was based to a decisive extent on the evidence given against him to the police by two persons who had filed a report against him and a further witness and that he was refused an opportunity to cross-examine them. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 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, was the applicant able to examine witnesses against him, as required by Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention (see Schatschaschwili v.   Germany , no. 9154/10, ECHR 2015)?