CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 février 2022

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 28 February 2022   THIRD SECTION Application no. 59152/18 Stepan Valeryevich POZDEYEV against Russia lodged on 27 November 2018 communicated on 8 February 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE A trial court convicted the applicant of unlawful storage of drugs in accelerated proceedings and sentenced him to imprisonment. The applicant appealed against the sentence on both factual and legal grounds. A copy of the prosecutor’s reply to his statement of appeal was not sent to him. He was absent from the appeal hearing and had remained unaware of the contents of the prosecutor’s submissions. On 5   July 2018 the appellate court upheld the conviction. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES 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? In particular, was the principle of equality of arms observed in so far as the submissions lodged by the prosecutor before the Supreme Court of the Udmurtia Republic were not forwarded to the applicant? Reference is made to the applicant’s allegation that he had been unaware of the contents of the prosecutor’s submissions and had been unable to reply to them (see, mutatis mutandis , Zahirović v. Croatia , no. 58590/11, §§   42-43 and 45-50, 25   April 2013; and, in so far as relevant, Murtazaliyeva v. Russia [GC], no.   36658/05, §   91, 18   December 2018).