Communicated on 19 October 2017

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 46603/11 Oleg Nikolayevich YANECHKO against Russia lodged on 14 July 2011

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Oleg Nikolayevich Yanechko , is a Russian national, who was born in 1968 and lives in Yekaterinburg.

The circumstances of the case

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

On 9 July 2007 the applicant had an altercation with A. According to the applicant, A. assaulted him and, in self-defence, the applicant shot A. in the right leg.

On 13 March 2009 the justice of peace of judicial circuit no. 6 of Pervouralsk found the applicant guilty of having made a death threat to A. and having caused bodily injuries to A. The court gave the applicant a 2.5 years ’ suspended sentence.

On 18 May 2010 the Pervouralsk Town Court of the Sverdlovsk Region upheld the applicant ’ s conviction, in substance, on appeal. The court relieved the applicant from serving the sentence in respect of the charges of the death threat and gave him a two years ’ suspended sentence in respect of the remaining charges of having caused bodily injuries.

The applicant appealed maintaining his innocence. He considered that his actions had amounted to self-defence, given A. ’ s behaviour. The prosecutor considered that the case should be remitted to fresh consideration to the Town Court in view of certain procedural irregularities.

On 14 January 2011 the Sverdlovsk Regional Court delivered a new judgment in the case. The court re-classified the charges against the applicant and found him guilty of having caused bodily injuries to A. under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance. The court gave the applicant a six months ’ suspended sentenced and relieved him from serving it.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 6 §§1 and 3 (a) and (b) of the Convention that on 14 January 2011 the Sverdlovsk Regional Court re ‑ classified the charges against him without informing him thereof and without providing him with the opportunity to prepare his defence.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1 . 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?

2. In particular, as regards the cassation appeal hearing held by the Sverdlovsk Regional Court on 14 January 2011, was the applicant informed in sufficient detail of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, as required by Article 6 § 3 (a) of the Convention, and was the applicant afforded adequate time and facilities to prepare his defence, as required by Article 6 § 3 (b) of the Convention (see Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, §§ 42-63, ECHR 1999 ‑ II)?