Communicated on 28 May 2018

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 25942/12 F.L.V. against Belgium lodged on 4 May 2012

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

By judgment of 25 January 2011 the Antwerp Criminal Court convicted the applicant for rape and indecent assault on a girl under the age of sixteen (F.V.) and for the possession of child pornography. He was sentenced to a four-year imprisonment. Before the Antwerp Court of Appeal the applicant requested to examine F.V. as witness in his presence or to subject the witness to a list of explicitly formulated questions. By judgment of 23 June 2011, the Court of Appeal did not find it necessary to subject F.V. to examination nor to order any further investigative measures. The Court sentenced the applicant to five years ’ imprisonment. The applicant appealed to the Court of Cassation, arguing that he had not been able to examine the only direct and key witness in breach of Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention. The Court of Cassation dismissed his appeal by a judgment of 15 November 2011.

Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention, the applicant complained that he had not been granted an opportunity at any stage of the criminal proceedings to examine F.V., the only direct and key witness to the offence of rape and indecent assault for which he was convicted.

QUESTION tO THE PARTIES

Given the applicant ’ s inability to cross-examine F.V., was there an infringement of his right to a fair trial guaranteed by Article 6 §§ 1 and 3(d) of the Convention infringed (for the general principles, see Al- Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, ECHR 2011, and Schatschaschwili v. Germany [GC], no. 9154/10 , §§ 107 and 118, ECHR 2015)?