Communicated on 22 November 2018

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 21523/13 Valentin Anatolyevich SYASKO against Russia lodged on 23 July 2009

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Valentin Anatolyevich Syasko , is a Russian national, who was born in 1964 and lives in Moscow.

The circumstances of the case

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

On 19 October 2007 the applicant was arrested on bank loan fraud charges. He remained in detention pending investigation and trial.

On an unspecified date in 2008 the investigation was completed and the Khamovnicheskiy District Court of Moscow opened a trial in the applicant ’ s case.

On 10 September 2008 counsel Kh . retained by the applicant did not appear in court. The court hearing was rescheduled for the next day.

On 11 September 2008 the Disctrict Court received a telegramme from counsel Kh . informing of his sick leave. Noting that the lawyer had failed to provide the sick leave certificate number or to indicate the medical establishment which had issued the said certificate and that he did not respond to the telephone calls, the presiding judge considered that the lawyer was unwilling to represent the applicant and advised the latter to retain another lawyer. The applicant refused.

Subsequently the trial judge adjourned the hearings scheduled for 12, 15 and 16 September 2008 for counsel Kh . ’ s absence.

On 17 September 2008 the trial judge appointed counsel K. to represent the applicant. She adjourned the hearing for an hour and half so that counsel K. could familiarise himself with the applicant ’ s case-file. The applicant ’ s objection that the allotted time was insufficient for the lawyer to prepare for the court hearing was to no avail. The proceedings were resumed. The applicant was allowed 10 minutes to confer with counsel K. The prosecutor and counsel K. made closing arguments. The trial judge retired to deliberate and deliver the judgment.

On 22 September 2008 the District Court found the applicant guilty of fraud and sentenced him to five years ’ imprisonment. The applicant appealed.

On 2 February 2009 the Moscow City Court upheld the applicant ’ s conviction on appeal.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 6 § 3 (b) of the Convention that he was unable to prepare for his defence.

QUESTION 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 of the Convention? In particular, as regards the trial court ’ s decision to replace counsel Kh . retained by the applicant with state-appointed counsel K., was the defence afforded adequate time to prepare, as required by Article 6 § 3 (b) of the Convention?