CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 novembre 2015

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both }       Communicated on 17 November 2015   FIRST SECTION Application no. 79472/13 Ekrem SAKIP against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia lodged on 10 December 2013 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Ekrem Sakip, is a Macedonian national, who was born in 1976 and lives in Skopje. In the impugned proceedings, the Skopje Court of Appeal considered him a “special recidivist”. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. From the material submitted by the applicant, it appears that on 22   November 2010 he had been arrested in Italy on the basis of an arrest warrant of 25 March 2009 issued by the Macedonian authorities in relation to final judgments ( K.br. 1110/05; K.br. 1715/07 and K.br. 2084/07 ) by which he had been convicted in absentia for several acts of theft. On 23   September 2011 Florence Court of Appeal decided to extradite the applicant in the respondent State. Whereas no document was submitted regarding the exact date of the applicant’s extradition in the respondent State, he alleged that he had been detained in Italy for eighteen months. By final judgments K.br. 1146/12 and K.br. 1322/12 the applicant was convicted of theft and sentenced to seven and five months’ imprisonment, respectively. In separate proceedings ( KS.KR.br.40/13 ), the applicant sought that he was sentenced to a single term of imprisonment reduced by the period in extradition detention in Italy. In this connection he relied on section 121 of the Criminal Code according to which period in extradition detention was to be deducted from the term of imprisonment issued for the same criminal offence. As stated by the applicant, on 4 April 2013 he had submitted to the Skopje Court of First Instance (“the trial court”) copies of relevant documents of the Italian authorities, translated into Macedonian, regarding his extradition detention. On 23 April 2013 the trial court issued a single custody sentence in duration of eleven months. However, it dismissed the applicant’s request to have the period in extradition detention in Italy deducted from the term of imprisonment. In this connection it relied to a notification of 1 February 2013 in which an enforcement judge stated that in the file there had been no order for the applicant’s extradition. Furthermore, the applicant had failed to produce evidence regarding the duration of the alleged extradition detention. By judgment of 10 June 2013 the Skopje Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by the applicant and upheld the trial court’s judgment. It reiterated that the applicant had not provided any document that would confirm the period in extradition detention in Italy. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains about the domestic courts’ refusal to deduct the period in extradition detention in Italy from the total term of imprisonment. In this connection he relies on Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Was the applicant detained in extradition detention in Italy in relation to the criminal offenses in respect of which he was convicted by court judgments K.br. 1146/12 and K.br. 1322/12 ? If so, was the custodial sentence imposed against him by the judgment KS.KR.br.40/13 lawful (in accordance with section 121 of the Criminal Code) and accordingly in compliance with Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? Regarding these proceedings, should the burden of proof be shifted from the applicant to the respondent State?