Communicated on 2 January 2017

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 60716/10 Vadym Olegovych SNOPOV against Ukraine lodged on 4 October 2010

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Vadym Olegovych Snopov , is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1979 and lives in Zouya , the Crimea. He is represented before the Court by Mr S. Ponomaryov , a lawyer practising in Bilogirsk , the Crimea.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

At 3.05 p.m. on 11 June 2010 the police stopped the applicant when driving his car and referred him to the Bilogirsk Hospital to be examined whether he was under intoxication.

On the same date a doctor on staff of the Hospital found that the applicant had been under narcotic intoxication and administrative proceedings for driving while intoxicated in breach of Article 130 § 1 of the Code of Administrative Offences were instituted against him.

At 9.00 p.m. on the same date the applicant obtained a certificate from the State Substance Abuse Dispensary of the Crimea (“Dispensary”), according to which he was not under intoxication at the time of his examination.

On 24 June 2010, in the applicant ’ s presence and referring to the certificate issued by the Dispensary, the Bilogorsk Court discontinued the proceedings having found that there was no evidence that the applicant had been in the state of intoxication while driving. This decision was not appealed against within the ten-day statutory time-limit and became final on 6 July 2010.

On 27 July 2010 acting Bilogirsk District prosecutor lodged an appeal against the judgment of 24 June 2010. The Crimea Court of Appeal granted him leave to appeal out of time without expounding on the reasons for this decision.

According to the applicant, he was not informed that the prosecutor had appealed against the decision to discontinue the proceedings against him.

On 12 August 2010 the Crimea Court of Appeal, sitting in camera in a single judge formation, quashed the decision of 24 June 2010. It found that the Dispensary ’ s certificate could not be admitted as evidence, because, in breach of applicable law, the examination at issue had been carried out more than two hours after the applicant had been stopped by the police. The court of appeal further found the applicant guilty of driving while intoxicated and suspended his driving licence for the period of one year. According to applicable law, this decision was not subject to appeal.

B. Relevant domestic law

According to Article 130 § 1 of the Code of Administrative Offence, as read in the material time, driving while intoxicated was punishable by a fine; suspension of a driver ’ s license for the period from one to two years; corrective labour or administrative arrest.

According to Article 294 of the Code of Administrative Offences, a prosecutor could appeal against a first-instance court judgment during ten days after its pronouncement, which could be extended by the court. The court of appeal was obliged to notify the defendant of the date and time of the hearing no later than three days before the hearing date. The case could be heard in the absence of a party to the proceedings only if the court had received confirmation that the absent party had been duly notified of the hearing and unless there were important reasons for the absence.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the judgment of 24 June 2010 was quashed in violation of the principle of legal certainty. He further complains under the same provision and Articles 10 and 17 of the Convention that there was no public hearing of his case on appeal and that he was not given an opportunity to be present before the court of appeal and to comment on the prosecutor ’ s appeal.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of criminal charges against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the domestic courts comply with the principle of legal certainty having accepted the prosecutor ’ s appeal and quashed the final judgment of 24 June 2010 by which the applicant had been acquitted? Was the principle of equality of arms respected as regards the proceedings before the court of appeal: was the applicant given an opportunity to comment on the appeal lodged by the prosecutor against his acquittal? Was the absence of public hearing before the court of appeal compatible with the requirements of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?