CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 27 janvier 2025

.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 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 17 February 2025   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 24469/23 Andriy Petrovych GORBATYUK against Ukraine lodged on 30 May 2023 communicated on 27 January 2025   SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s conviction and sentence to life imprisonment for a murder. In applying the life sentence, the trial court extensively relied on the applicant’s statements contained in a psychiatrist’s report concerning his antisocial life history and background, including drug addiction. The Court of Appeal initially reduced the sentence to fifteen years’ imprisonment but, after remittal by the Supreme Court on this point, it eventually upheld the life sentence imposed by the trial court. Final decision: Supreme Court, 1 February 2023. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention that the content of the psychiatrist’s report, which had been ordered to determine the applicant’s sanity at the time of the offence and his mental fitness to stand trial, was relied on by the domestic courts in the context of their sentencing assessment. In view of the use made of the report, the procedure which led to its preparation did not provide sufficient safeguards, in particular because the applicant had not been advised of his right to remain silent and his right to a lawyer. The applicant also argued that the domestic courts failed to sufficiently reason their decisions, in particular having regard to the Supreme Court’s case-law (case no. 135/1530/16-к, decision of 26 April 2018) to the effect that the courts could not rely on statements in such psychiatric reports in sentencing assessment.         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, in view of the use to which the content of the psychiatrist’s report was put by the domestic courts and the procedural safeguards that surrounded the applicant’s participation in the relevant expert examination: (i)     Did the courts provide sufficient reasons for their sentencing decisions? (ii)     Has there been a breach of the applicant’s privilege against   self-incrimination? (iii)     Was the applicant able to defend himself through a legal assistance of his own choosing, as required by Article   6 §   3   (c) of the Convention?