Communicated on 19 June 2020 Published on 6 July 2020

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 26114/18 Konstantin Sergeyevich KISELEV against Russia lodged on 17 May 2018

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Konstantin Sergeyevich Kiselev , is a Russian national, who was born in 1996 and lives in Cherepovets.

The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

On 18 March 2017 the applicant hit M. with his car causing her death.

On an unspecified date the applicant was charged with manslaughter.

On 30 October 2017 the Cherepovets Town Court of the Vologda Region found the applicant guilty as charged and gave him a conditional sentence of 2.5 years ’ imprisonment and a 3 years ’ driving ban. The applicant was ordered to pay non-pecuniary damages and to reimburse legal costs and expenses to the deceased ’ s daughter. The court based its findings on the witnesses ’ statements and forensic evidence. The applicant pleaded not guilty. He sought to challenge the forensic expert ’ s findings by introducing alternative expert reports of 26 July and 7 August 2017. The court refused to admit those as evidence. It also dismissed the applicant ’ s request to question the forensic expert appointed by the prosecution and to commission a new expert examination.

On 19 December 2017 the Vologda Regional Court upheld the applicant ’ s conviction on appeal.

On 16 April 2018 the Presidium of the Regional Court upheld the applicant ’ s conviction by way of cassation review.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that the criminal proceedings in his case were unfair. In particular, he was unable to challenge the forensic expert evidence introduced by the prosecution.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

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? In particular, as regards the trial court ’ s refusal to question the forensic expert on whose report it relied when finding the applicant guilty or to admit the expert reports commissioned by the applicant, was there a disbalance between the defence and the prosecution in the area of collecting and adducing expert evidence (see Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev v. Russia, nos. 11082/06 and 13772/05, §§ 724-35, 25 July 2013, and Pichugin v. Russia [Committee], no. 38958/07, §§ 31-38, 6 June 2017)?