CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 septembre 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 10 October 2022   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 22069/19 Guo Lan HU against the Netherlands lodged on 10 April 2019 communicated on 19 September 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention that her conviction of complicity in human trafficking and theft was based to a decisive extent on the evidence given against her by A. to the police and the investigating judge, whereas her requests to re-examine A. at the trial hearing before the Court of Appeal had been refused. The applicant was convicted in the same criminal proceedings as the applicant in Tong v. the Netherlands , no. 20209/19. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against her, in accordance with Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention (see Schatschaschwili v. Germany [GC], no. 9154/10, §§   100-31, ECHR 2015; Danilov v. Russia , no. 88/05, § 111, 1 December 2020; and Keskin v. the Netherlands , no. 2205/16, §§ 38-51, 19 January 2021)?