Search
document

Document text Analytics

PIKHOTSKYY v. UKRAINE and 2 other applications

Doc ref: 47866/13;34514/14;2511/16 • ECHR ID: 001-201320

Document date: January 20, 2020

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 1

PIKHOTSKYY v. UKRAINE and 2 other applications

Doc ref: 47866/13;34514/14;2511/16 • ECHR ID: 001-201320

Document date: January 20, 2020

Cited paragraphs only

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

47866/13

Pikhotskyy v. Ukraine

15/07/2013

Anatoliy Volodymyrovych PIKHOTSKYY

1981Lityn

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.

34514/14

Larina v.

Ukraine

17/04/2014

Tetyana Volodymyrivna LARINA

1969Dnipro

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.

2511/16

Slobodyan v.

Ukraine

24/12/2015

Petro Romanovych SLOBODYAN

1962Lutsk

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.

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant