CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 décembre 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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s1DE04B9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } Published on 9 January 2023   THIRD SECTION Application no. 30395/20 Kenneth BRUNELL against the Netherlands lodged on 16 July 2020 communicated on 16 December 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns the alleged unfairness of criminal proceedings. Whereas the Amsterdam Regional Court acquitted the applicant of complicity in manslaughter because there was no conclusive technical evidence available and it therefore mainly came down to witness X’s statement, which it deemed not credible enough to convict the applicant, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal convicted the applicant of that charge. It found that even though no conclusive technical evidence was available and caution with regard to X’s statement was necessary, X’s statement was credible enough to convict the applicant because there was corroborative evidence, such as telephone data, which substantiated X’s account of events and contradicted the applicant’s statement. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that he was deprived of a fair hearing because after he had been acquitted at first instance, he was convicted by the appellate court without that court having itself, out of its own motion, directly heard witness X even though it reassessed the evidentiary value of that witness’s testimony. The applicant was convicted in the same criminal proceedings as the applicant in McArdle v. the Netherlands , no. 31220/20.       QUESTION 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 (see, inter alia, Júlíus Þór Sigurþórsson v. Iceland , no. 38797/17, §§ 30 ‑ 38, 16 July 2019; and Ignat v. Romania , no. 17325/16, § 46, 9 November 2021)?