Communicated on 10 March 2020
Published on 30 March 2020
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 72531/13
Leonid Vasylyovych LYSYUK
against Ukraine
lodged on 14 November 2013
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns criminal proceedings against the applicant, a former official of the Bailiffs’ Service, on suspicion of bribery and his following complaints under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) and (d) and Article 8 of the Convention in that respect:
(i) that he was unable to examine several witnesses against him: Mr O.L. and Mr A.R. (from whom the applicant had allegedly received bribes), Ms T.B. and Ms I.P. (the applicant’s subordinates at the relevant time who had been involved in the proceedings in connection with which the bribes had allegedly been received), and Mr K.P. and Ms T.M. (organisers of the public auction held in connection with the same proceedings connected to the bribery);
(ii) that the authorities failed to disclose to the defence certain court decisions authorising the covert recording of the applicant’s conversations;
(iii) that the domestic courts relied on the results of those covert recordings even though they had allegedly been obtained unlawfully;
(iv) that the proceedings were excessively lengthy, since they lasted from 26 January 2007 to 13 May 2013 before three levels of jurisdiction;
(v) that the authorities improperly interfered with the applicant’s private life by unlawfully recording his conversations.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has the applicant complied with the six-month time-limit laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, as far as his complaint under Article 8 of the Convention is concerned?
2. Was there an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life, under paragraph 1 of Article 8 of the Convention, on account of the covert recording of his conversations? If so, did that interference comply with the requirements of paragraph 2 of Article 8 of the Convention?
3. 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, on account of the domestic courts’ reliance on the recordings of the applicant’s conversations allegedly obtained unlawfully?
4. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him, in accordance with Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) of the Convention, on account of the alleged failure to disclose the court decisions authorising cover recordings of the applicant’s conversations to the defence?
5. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him, in accordance with Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention, having regard to his complaint of his inability to examine witnesses O.L., A.R., T.B., I.P., K.P. and T.M.?
6. Was the length of the criminal proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy