Published on 4 December 2023

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 48879/19 Vitaliy Viktorovych CHAYKOVSKYY against Ukraine lodged on 7 September 2019 communicated on 13 November 2023

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the alleged unfairness of the proceedings before the Supreme Court for the review of the applicant’s conviction based on the Court’s findings in his previous case.

On 10 November 2016, the Court found a violation of Article 6 § 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention in the applicant’s case ( Sitnevskiy and Chaykovskiy v. Ukraine , nos. 48016/06 and 7817/07) on account of the admission of untested statements of three witnesses as evidence in the criminal proceedings which ended with the applicant’s conviction and his sentencing to life imprisonment.

On 27 April 2017, as alleged, the applicant lodged with the Supreme Court a request for the review of his case based on the findings of the Court.

On 17 April 2019 the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, having reviewed the applicant’s case in the light of the judgment of the Court, quashed part of his conviction (for the charges in relation to which the Court had found violations) and remitted them for new examination. However, the Supreme Court upheld the applicant’s conviction on the remaining charges and also his sentence, finding that it was not affected and still warranted the punishment of life imprisonment.

The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 that the Supreme Court was not a “tribunal established by law” as instead of referring the case to a trial court for a fresh consideration, it had reassessed the totality of the facts and evidence in his case, despite having no jurisdiction to do so. Relying on Article 6 § 3 (a) and (b) he complained that, insofar that the Supreme Court “unexpectedly” conducted the reassessment of evidence, he had had no adequate knowledge of the charges against him and no facilities to prepare his defence. He relied on the Court’s judgments in the cases of Shabelnik v. Ukraine (no. 2), no. 15685/11, 1 June 2017 and Yaremenko v. Ukraine (no. 2), no. 66338/09, 30 April 2015).

Lastly, the applicant complained under Articles 6 and 13 as to the length of proceedings before the Supreme Court, as his application for review had been lodged in April 2017 and the judgment had been delivered two years later.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Is Article 6 § 1 of the Convention under its criminal head applicable to the proceedings in the present case (see Shabelnik v. Ukraine (no. 2), no. 15685/11, 1 June 2017 and Yaremenko v. Ukraine (no. 2), no. 66338/09, 30 April 2015)?

2. If so, did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him by a tribunal established by law, in accordance with Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention? In particular,

(a) Did the Supreme Court have jurisdiction under Ukrainian law, in proceedings for review initiated following a finding of a violation of the Convention by the European Court of Human Rights, to reassess the charges and the sentence as it did or was it obliged to remit the case for a retrial?

(b) In the light of the Supreme Court’s approach to the case, was the applicant:

- informed promptly and in sufficient detail of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, as required by Article 6 § 3 (a) of the Convention?

- afforded adequate facilities to prepare his defence, as required by Article 6 § 3 (b) of the Convention?

3. Was the length of the proceeding before the Supreme Court in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 13 of the Convention in view of the nature of the case?