Communicated on 7 December 2016
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 44471/13
Yaroslav Volodymyrovych KONDRATYUK against Ukraine
lodged on 4 July 2013
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Yaroslav Volodymyrovych Kondratyuk, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1982 and lives in Zhytomyr.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
At the time of the events the applicant worked as a State bailiff. He dealt, in particular, with the enforcement proceedings, in which the company “Zh.” was a debtor.
On 2 November 2012 K., a representative of the company in question, addressed the Zhytomyr Regional Department of the State Security Service of Ukraine (“the SBU”) with a written statement that the applicant and the head of the local bailiffs’ service, G., were soliciting a bribe from him for helping his company to avoid the bankruptcy proceedings.
On the same day the applicant and G. met with K. in the latter’s office. Once they had left the premises, they were apprehended by the SBU officials who found 4,000 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH) in G.’s bag. One of the banknotes contained an inscription “Bribe SBU” visible in ultraviolet light.
On 9 November 2012 the Zhytomyr Regional Prosecutor’s Office refused to institute criminal proceedings against the applicant and G. for the lack of corpus delicti in their actions.
On 13 November 2012 an investigator drew up a report on the administrative corruption-related offence committed by the applicant.
On 7 December 2012 the Zhytomyr Korolyovskyy District Court found the applicant guilty of abuse of office with a view to gaining profit (an administrative corruption-related offence) and fined him UAH 2,550 (approximately 240 euros). The court considered the applicant’s guilt to be proved by the following evidence: K.’s written statement and the explanations given by his colleagues, the report on the banknotes’ inspection and marking of 2 November 2012, as well as the report of the same date on the inspection of the scene following the apprehension of the applicant and G.
The applicant appealed. He claimed his innocence and alleged that he had been “framed” by K. The applicant submitted that K. had already been involved in the past in a similar bribery-related incident with a local judge. Furthermore, the same officials who had apprehended the aforementioned judge, had apprehended the applicant. The applicant considered that those coincidences warranted further investigation. He also submitted that the SBU officials had undertaken the enquiry operation in question immediately after K.’s complaint, without having verified its plausibility. Lastly, the applicant complained that the first-instance court had rejected, without reasoning, his requests for summoning K., despite the fact that the latter was the key witness in the case.
On 4 January 2013 the Zhytomyr Regional Court of Appeal upheld both the finding and the reasoning of the first-instance court, without further details. Its ruling was final.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention of the unfairness of the administrative offence proceedings against him. He complains, in particular, under Article 6 § 3 (d) that that he could not question witness K.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was he able to examine the key witness against him K., as required by Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy