Communicated on 27 November 2018

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 35432/10 Tetyana Oleksandrivna BONDARENKO against Ukraine lodged on 5 June 2010

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The Kremenchuk Transport Prosecutor drew up a report that the applicant , a civil servant, had committed a corruption-related administrative offence (reporting untruthful information). While the first-instance court discontinued the proceedings on the grounds that there was no indication of an administrative offence, the appellate court quashed that decision upon the prosecutor ’ s appeal (protest). Following a hearing conducted with the prosecutor ’ s participation, but in the absence of the applicant or her lawyer, on 21 December 2009 the Poltava Regional Court of Appeal, by a final ruling, found the applicant guilty of the administrative offence concerned and fined her 225 Ukrainian hryvnias (equal to 22 euros at the time). According to the applicant, neither she nor her lawyer had been notified of the appellate court ’ s hearing.

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

Does the present case fall within the scope of Article 35 § 3 (b) of the Convention? In particular, did the applicant suffer any “significant disadvantage” (see, mutatis mutandis , Görgün v. Turkey ( dec. ), no. 42978/06, 16 September 2014, and Mikhaylova v. Russia , no. 46998/08, § 49, 19 November 2015)?

Was Article 6 of the Convention under its criminal head applicable to the proceedings in the applicant ’ s cases? If so:

Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge against her, given her and her lawyer ’ s absence from the hearing of the appellate court, which was conducted with the prosecutor ’ s participation? Had she and/or her lawyer been duly notified of that hearing?

If such was the case, the Government are asked to produce a copy of the applicant ’ s and/or her lawyer ’ s summons to the hearing of the Poltava Regional Court of Appeal of 21 December 2009, indicating the date of its receipt by the applicant and/or her lawyer.