Communicated on 22 November 2017
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 15859/10
Semen Nikolayevich KAPSHUK
against Ukraine
lodged on 9 March 2010
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Semen Nikolayevich Kapshuk, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1958 and lives in Dezgmyzha.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 21 December 2006 the Bolgrad Town Court found the applicant liable for a breach of traffic regulations resulting in bodily injuries and sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment, suspended with probation. According to the judgment, the applicant – a Moldovan citizen who did not reside in Ukraine – had avoided appearing before the court and had not participated in the hearing.
The applicant appealed, having stated, inter alia, that he had not been able to participate in the hearing because of his poor state of health.
On 4 October 2007 the Odessa Regional Court of Appeal, in the applicant’s absence, rejected the applicant’s appeal. The court stated in particular that the applicant had been summoned by the first-instance court on a number of occasions but had failed to appear at the hearings. It further noted that no evidence regarding his poor state of health had been submitted by the applicant to the first-instance court.
The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law, stating, inter alia, that he had not been informed by the Court of Appeal of the date and time of the hearing.
On 8 September 2009 the Supreme Court of Ukraine, in the applicant’s absence, dismissed his appeal on points of law. It noted that the case file suggested that the applicant had been informed of the hearing of 26 April 2007 on 27 February 2007 and that on 25 April 2007 the appellate court had received a request from the applicant for the case to be heard in his absence because of his poor state of health. It further established that the applicant had been informed of the hearing of 4 October 2007 by a letter of 3 September 2007 but that the applicant had failed to appear and had not provided any justification for that failure. The applicant received the mentioned decision of the Supreme Court by post on 5 October 2009.
In his application to the Court, the applicant denied receiving any notifications about the hearings from the Odessa Regional Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court.
B. Relevant domestic law
The relevant provisions of the domestic legislation can be found in the Court’s judgment in the case of Sobko v. Ukraine (no. 15102/10, § 41, 17 December 2015).
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention about the fact that the court hearings in his case took place in his absence.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. 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 given his absence from the hearings at the Odessa Regional Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court?
2. Was the applicant duly notified of the hearings in his case?
The Government are requested to submit all relevant documents concerning the notification of the applicant of the impugned proceedings, including those referred to in the judgements of the domestic courts.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy