BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 65078/10
Oleksiy Sergiyovych GRYB
against Ukraine
lodged on 22 October 2010

STATEMENT OF FACTS

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Oleksiy Sergiyovych Gryb, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1979 and lives in Korostyshiv.

A.  The circumstances of the case

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

On 5 November 2009 the Vinnytsya Regional Court of Appeal, acting as a first-instance court, found the applicant, a judge, and police officer G. guilty of abuse of office and sentenced each of them to five years’ imprisonment suspended for three years. The court established that in April and November 2007 the applicant and officer G. had acted unlawfully to the effect that Mr I.’s administrative liability was engaged and the applicant had ordered the administrative detention of Mr I. for fifteen days on 20 April and 8 November 2007. During his detention Mr I. worked on the construction site of the applicant’s father.

During the court hearings Mr I. and a number of other witnesses were not present and the court relied on their testimony given during the investigation.

The applicant appealed in cassation to the Supreme Court on 7 December 2009.

On 22 April 2010, in the absence of the applicant, the court upheld the judgment of the first-instance court with some amendments.

B.  Relevant domestic law

Code of Criminal Procedure (in the wording of March 2010)

Under Article 383 the judgments rendered by an appellate court, acting as a court of first instance, may be reviewed in cassation proceedings. In such cases, Article 394 provides for the obligation to notify the parties of the hearing in the case.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 7 of the Convention that the domestic courts erroneously classified his actions as abuse of office and that there had been no corpus delicti in his actions. He further complains under Article 6 § 3 (c) and (d) of the Convention that he could not defend himself before the Supreme Court, as he had not been informed of the date and time of the hearing, and that he could not question the important witnesses against him, as they had not been present before the first-instance court.

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.  Was the applicant able to defend himself, as required by Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention, during the hearing before the Supreme Court?

3.  Was the applicant able to examine the principal witnesses against him, as required by Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention?