Communicated on 20 January 2020
Published on 10 February 2020
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 47866/13
Anatoliy Volodymyrovych PIKHOTSKYY against Ukraine
and 2 other applications
(see list appended)
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applicants were convicted of various offences. They allege that in convicting them the domestic courts relied on the evidence of certain witnesses who were allegedly not cross-examined by the applicants in the course of the trials or refused to summon certain witnesses for the defence at their trials. The relevant details are set out in the Appendix.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against them, in accordance with Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention, having regard to their complaints of their inability to examine certain witnesses for the prosecution or to obtain the examination of certain witnesses on their behalf?
APPENDIX
No.
Application no.
Case name
Lodged on
Applicant
Year of Birth
Place of Residence
Nationality
Represented by
Communicated complaint concerning failure to examine certain witnesses
1
47866/13
Pikhotskyy v. Ukraine
15/07/2013
Anatoliy Volodymyrovych PIKHOTSKYY
1981
Lityn
Ukrainian
Oleksandr Ivanovych NYKYTYUK
Mr. K. who bought drugs from the applicant and testified against him was examined by the presiding judge himself in chambers in the absence of the applicant and his lawyer who were not able to cross-examine the witness.
2
34514/14
Larina v.
Ukraine
17/04/2014
Tetyana Volodymyrivna LARINA
1969
Dnipro
Ukrainian
Kateryna Oleksandrivna DROZACH
The applicant was convicted of breach of traffic rules which caused harm to the health of another driver. She alleges that the trial court failed to exercise due diligence in summoning Mr Y.Sh. and Mr O.K., two other drivers whose vehicles had been involved in the traffic accident, but nevertheless relied on their statements in convicting the applicant.
3
2511/16
Slobodyan v.
Ukraine
24/12/2015
Petro Romanovych SLOBODYAN
1962
Lutsk
Ukrainian
The applicant was convicted of a violation of traffic rules in connection with a traffic incident of which Mr B., the driver of the other car involved, was the victim. The trial court failed to examine B. citing as the reason the fact that domestic law did not allow it to compel the presence of a victim, as opposed to other witnesses.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy