The case concerns a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (right to a fair trial) in proceedings against a Ukrainian national for driving under the influence of drugs. The European Court of Human Rights found that the Ukrainian Court of Appeal lacked impartiality when examining the administrative offense case against the applicant.The Court identified several key issues in this decision:
- The absence of a prosecuting party at the Court of Appeal hearings, where no one supported the prosecution’s case against the applicant
- The Court of Appeal’s actions in collecting evidence on its own initiative that was detrimental to the applicant
- The confusion between the roles of prosecutor and judge, as the Court of Appeal actively searched for evidence to contradict the defense’s arguments
The Court distinguished this case from the previous Figurka v. Ukraine decision, emphasizing that here the applicant identified specific circumstances that cast legitimate doubts on the court’s impartiality. The Court found that the Court of Appeal’s actions in independently collecting and using evidence against the applicant created justified doubts about its objective impartiality, which violated Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.The most significant aspects of this decision are:
- The Court’s emphasis on the importance of maintaining clear separation between prosecutorial and judicial functions
- The recognition that a court’s active role in gathering evidence against the accused can compromise its impartiality
- The clarification that even in minor administrative cases, the basic requirements of judicial impartiality must be maintained
