FIFTH SECTIONCASE OF SNOPOV v. UKRAINE(Application no. 60716/10)      JUDGMENT STRASBOURG27 February 2025 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Snopov v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, President, María Elósegui, Diana Sârcu, judges,and Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar,Having regard to:the application (no. 60716/10) lodged with the Court against Ukraine under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 4 October 2010 by a Ukrainian national, Mr Vadym Olegovych Snopov (“the applicant”), who was born in 1979, lives in Zouya and was represented by Mr S. Ponomaryov, a lawyer practising in Bilohirsk;the decision to give notice of the applicant’s complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the quashing of the applicant’s acquittal, his inability to comment on the prosecutor’s appeal and the lack of public hearing before the court of appeal, to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Ms M. Sokorenko, of the Ministry of Justice, and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible;the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 30 January 2025,Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE1. The case concerns the allegedly unfair conduct of the proceedings before the Court of Appeal of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (“the appellate court”) regarding charges brought against the applicant for an administrative offence of driving while in a state of intoxication and that court’s subsequent decision to quash the Bilohirsk Court’s (“the first-instance court”) final judgment, which had dismissed those charges as unfounded. The applicant complained of a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.2. On 12 August 2010 the appellate court examined an appeal lodged by the prosecutor on 27 July 2010 against the first-instance court’s final judgment of 24 June 2010 by which the applicant had been acquitted. The appellate court decided that the ten-day time-limit applicable to an appeal by the prosecutor ought to be extended, without giving any specific reason for this decision. It allowed the appeal on the merits, quashed the first-instance court’s decision of 24 June 2010, found the applicant guilty of driving while intoxicated and suspended his driving licence for a period of one year. Neither the applicant, nor the prosecutor were present at the appellate hearing.3. On 18 August 2010 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court against the appellate court’s decision, mainly alleging that he had not learned of the prosecutor’s appeal and the appellate court hearing until after 12 August 2010, that is, after the decision had been taken.4. On 16 September 2010 the Supreme Court informed the applicant that no cassation appeal lay against the appellate court’s decision.5. In a letter of 17 November 2010, the first-instance court, in whose premises the case file was held, informed the applicant that no minutes had been taken of the appellate hearing of 12 August 2010.THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT6. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the appellate court’s failure to inform him of either the prosecutor’s appeal or the appellate proceedings prior to the hearing of 12 August 2010, which was not held in public. In consequence, he alleged that he had been unable to participate in those proceedings and to comment on the prosecutor’s appeal. He also alleged that the appellate court had acted unlawfully in quashing the first-instance court’s final judgment of 24 June 2010, in that it had disregarded the fact that the prosecutor’s appeal had been lodged out of time.7. The Government argued that they had no access to the case file, which was located within the territory of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, outside their area of control. They also argued that the applicant’s submissions failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that neither he nor his lawyer had been informed of the appellate proceedings. In any event, the applicant’s absence from the hearing of 12 August 2010 had not prevented the appellate court from reaching a decision fairly on his case.

Outcome for Article 6: violation