CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 21 octobre 2010

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 134 October 2010 Zhuk v. Ukraine - 45783/05 Judgment 21.10.2010 [Section V] Article 6 Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 Fair hearing Equality of arms Examination of appeal on points of law by Supreme Court at preliminary hearing held in presence of public prosecutor but in absence of accused: violation   Facts – The applicant was convicted of drug-dealing and sentenced to four years’ imprisonment. He appealed to the Supreme Court of Ukraine, challenging his conviction on points of law. He also expressed his wish to be present at the hearing. He was no longer legally represented. In 2005, in the presence of the public prosecutor but in the absence of the applicant, a panel of three judges of the Supreme Court examined the case on the merits and dismissed his appeal. Law – Article 6 § 1: In compliance with the domestic law, the Supreme Court had held a preliminary hearing in order to decide whether the appeal before it was sufficiently well-founded to warrant its examination in a public hearing in the presence of all necessary parties. Thus, the applicant’s chances of being present and, accordingly, of making oral submissions at the hearing depended on whether his appeal passed the sifting-out procedure. While the lack of a public hearing before a jurisdiction whose competence was limited to questions of law might not be in breach of Article 6 §   1 per se , this was true in so far as the relevant court held a hearing in camera. This had not been so in the instant case: the prosecutor had had the advantage of being present at that preliminary hearing, unlike any other party, and of making oral submissions to the three-judge panel with a view to having the applicant’s appeal dismissed and his conviction upheld. Procedural fairness required, however, that the applicant should also have been given an opportunity to make oral submissions in reply. The panel had dismissed the appeal at the preliminary hearing, thus dispensing with a public hearing which the applicant, who had requested that the hearing be held in his presence, would have been able to attend. Therefore, the procedure before the Supreme Court of Ukraine had not enabled the applicant to participate in the proceedings in conformity with the principle of equality of arms. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41: EUR 1,200 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes