Communicated on 2 March 2021
Published on 22 March 2021
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 63452/17
Vyacheslav Leonidovych PUSTOVYY against Ukraine
and 8 other applications
(see list appended)
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applicants were found guilty of the following administrative (minor) offences:
- malicious disobedience to police (no. 63452/17),
- driving under the influence of alcohol (nos. 66624/17 and 13063/18);
- refusal to undergo an alcohol/drug intoxication test at the instruction of traffic police (the remaining six applications).
The applicant in case no. 63452/17 was sentenced to fifty hours of community work. The sentence in all the other cases was a fine of 10,200 Ukrainian hryvnias (equal to about 350 euros) and withdrawal of the driving licence for a one-year period.
All the applications concern the alleged lack of impartiality of the courts in the administrative offence proceedings against the applicants on account of the examination of the matter in the absence of a prosecuting party. The applicants claim that in such circumstances the courts could be regarded as having taken on the role of the prosecution.
Applications nos. 63452/17 and 72743/17 (introduced by the same person in respect of two different sets of proceedings) also concern the applicant’s inability to question the eyewitnesses of the events, which led to his conviction in those two sets of administrative offence proceedings (firstly, for malicious disobedience to police and, secondly, for refusal to undergo an alcohol/drug intoxication test), even though their written statements were used against him.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES AS REGARDS ALL THE APPLICATIONS:
Has there been a violation of the impartiality requirement under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the absence of the prosecuting party from the proceedings (see Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016, and Mikhaylova v. Ukraine, no. 10644/08, 6 March 2018)?
ADDITIONAL QUESTION TO THE PARTIES AS REGARDS APPLICATIONS NOS. 63452/17 AND 72743/17:
Was the applicant able to examine the witnesses of the incident of 8 February 2017, whose written testimonies were used against him in both sets of proceedings? Was there a violation of his rights under Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention on that account?
APPENDIX
No.
Application no.
Case name
Lodged on
Applicant’s full name
First level of jurisdiction
Appeal proceedings
1.
63452/17
Pustovyy v. Ukraine
15/08/2017
Vyacheslav Leonidovych PUSTOVYY
28 February 2017, the Dnipropetrovsk Industrialnyy District Court
20 April 2017, the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal
2.
66624/17
Sugay v. Ukraine
19/08/2017
Viktor Volodymyrovych SUGAY
3 February 2017, the Vynogradiv Town Court
16 May 2017, the Zakarpattya Regional Court of Appeal
3.
68073/17
Glushchenko v. Ukraine
07/09/2017
Maksym Pavlovych GLUSHCHENKO
10 February 2017, the Vinnytsia City Court
23 March 2017, the Vinnytsia Regional Court of Appeal
4.
72743/17
Pustovyy v. Ukraine
25/09/2017
Vyacheslav Leonidovych PUSTOVYY
3 May 2017, the Dnipropetrovsk District Court
7 July 2017, the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal
5.
13063/18
Bantysh v. Ukraine
04/03/2018
Sergiy Anatoliyovych BANTYSH
26 July 2017, the Kirovograd City Court
6 September 2017, the Kirovograd Regional Court of Appeal
6.
8077/19
Lobchuk v. Ukraine
30/01/2019
Mykola Ivanovych LOBCHUK
5 April 2018, the Rivne City Court
30 July 2017, the Rivne Regional Court of Appeal
7.
51757/19
Myrgorodskyy v. Ukraine
20/09/2019
Andriy Valeriyovych MYRGORODSKYY
19 April 2019, Dniprodzerzhynsk Zavodskyy District Court
30 May 2019, the Dnipro Court of Appeal
8.
55770/19
Pushkaryov v. Ukraine
14/10/2019
Denys Valeriyovych PUSHKARYOV
1 February 2019, the Kyiv Svyatoshynskyy District Court
15 April 2019, the Kyiv Court of Appeal
9.
58464/19
Shyrokov v. Ukraine
29/10/2019
Sergiy Leonidovych SHYROKOV
24 January 2019, the Kyiv Svyatoshynskyy District Court
13 May 2019, the Kyiv Court of Appeal
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy