CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 25 mai 2016

.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 } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt }   Communicated on 25 May 2016   FIRST SECTION Application no. 48835/13 Zenelabedin PULA against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia lodged on 25 July 2013 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Zenelabedin Pula, is an Albanian national, who was born in 1955 and lives in Tirana, Albania. He is represented before the Court by Mr D. Korovešovski, a lawyer practising in Ohrid. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 30 July 2004 at 8,50 pm. the applicant was involved in a car accident on the road between Ohrid and Kičevo, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. The accident concerned a head-on collision with a car driven by certain D.G. N.G. was a co-passenger in D.G.’s car. After the accident, D.G. was transported with an ambulance to Ohrid Hospital. He was diagnosed as having fracture of the hip and left knee. The applicant sustained minor injuries. On the same date, at 9.30 pm. an on-site inspection was carried out by police officers G.S., B.A., M.M., and M.R., a crime expert. They photographed the scene and drew up a sketch regarding the accident. An investigating judge joined the inspection at 10 pm. An on-site report of the inspection served as a criminal complaint against D.G. On 31 July 2004 D.G. died in hospital. On 30 September 2004 the public prosecutor rejected the criminal complaint against D.G. due to his death. As stated in the decision, D.G. was charged with traffic endangerment since in the accident of 30 July 2004 he had left-out his lane and hit the applicant’s car. The latter had been driving correctly. Those facts were established on the basis of the on-site report, photographs of the scene, the sketch, an expert report drawn up by S.Z. and the evidence produced by the applicant. On an unspecified date, the public prosecutor requested that an investigating judge open investigation in respect of the applicant on account of reasonable suspicion that he had committed a serious traffic crime. On 8   February 2006 the applicant gave an oral statement before the investigating judge with the assistance of court-certified interpreter into Albanian. In a statement of 7 March 2006, N.G., the co-passenger in D.G.’s car, stated that the applicant had used high beam headlights at the time of the accident and “had run into their car”. On an unspecified date, the investigating judge ordered the Forensic Bureau ( Биро за судски вештачења ) to draw up an expert report regarding the accident. In a report of June 2006, B.S., an expert in the Bureau, found that the sketch of the accident drawn up after the incident had not corresponded to the photographs of the scene. Furthermore, the skid marks on the road had not been of the applicant’s car. In such circumstances, the expert concluded that the report of the on-site inspection and the sketch of the accident had been wrong and unreliable. Relying on the available photographs and the skid marks on the road, the Bureau found that the applicant, at the relevant time, had been driving at 79 km/h (which had been below the maximum speed allowed at that juncture) and that the left wheels of his car had left-out the lane and provoked head-on collision with D.G.’s car. Relying on the expert report of S.Z. (see above), the Bureau further concluded that the windscreen and maybe the front headlights of the applicant’s car had been very dirty, which could have affected the applicant’s ability to drive. On 7 July 2006 the public prosecutor lodged an indictment against the applicant. The latter, who was represented by a local lawyer, submitted an objection, which the Ohrid Court of First Instance (“the trial court”) dismissed with a decision dated 21 September 2006. Between 4 September and 13 November 2006 the trial court held three hearings at which it heard oral evidence from the applicant, the police officers G.S. and M.M. who had carried out the on-site inspection of the scene and M.R., the expert. The latter admitted that in the sketch he had wrongly indicated the road inclination, but confirmed that all other relevant details had been correct. The applicant and his lawyer attended all hearings, which were held in the presence of a court-certified interpreter into Albanian. On 13 November 2006 the trial court rendered a judgment by which it convicted the applicant of “grave traffic crimes against safety of people and property” and sentenced him to eight months’ imprisonment. The relevant facts were established on the basis of available evidence, in particular the Bureau’s expert report and N.G.’s statement. The court also established that D.G. had sustained serious bodily injuries in the accident as a result of which he had died. The applicant appealed against the trial court’s judgment arguing, inter alia , that the bill of indictment, the Bureau’s report and trial court’s judgment had not been translated into Albanian, the applicant’s mother tongue. On 25 September 2008 the Bitola Court of Appeal granted the applicant’s appeal and quashed the lower court’s judgment. It ordered the trial court to reconstruct the incident and to commission an expert report in order to determine D.G.’s injuries and whether they had caused his death. It did not comment on the applicant’s complaints regarding the interpretation into Albanian. At a hearing of 14 July 2009, the trial court read out the indictment, which the court-certified interpreter translated into Albanian. The incident reconstruction took place on 1 September 2009 in the presence of the applicant, his representative, the police officers who had carried out the on-site inspection after the accident, experts M.R. and B.S. At a hearing of 3 February 2010 the trial court examined B.S. and doctors Z.B. and A.M. regarding D.G.’s injuries and the cause of his death. Both doctors stated that D.G. had been unconscious when admitted in hospital. Besides the fractures indicated above, he had sustained internal haemorrhaging due to a trauma to several organs, such as the spleen, kidney and bowels. B.S. confirmed his findings specified in the expert report of June 2006. The court refused the applicant’s request for examination of the expert M.R. and the investigating judge who had carried out the on-site inspection after the accident. The record of the court hearing contained no indication that it was attended by the court-certified interpreter into Albanian. On 9 April 2010 the trial court found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to eight months’ imprisonment. The court established the relevant facts regarding the accident relying mainly on the Bureau’s expert report and B.S.’s statement. That D.G. had died as a result of the injuries sustained in the accident was established mainly on the basis of statements of doctors Z.B. and A.M. and the available medical material. The applicant appealed against this judgment arguing that interpretation into Albanian had not been provided at all hearings, including the hearing of 3 February 2010 at which the trial court had admitted considerable relevant evidence. In such circumstances, he had been prevented to follow the trial. On 1 March 2011 the Bitola Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the trial court’s judgment finding no grounds to depart from the established facts and the reasons contained therein. The court did not address the applicant’s complaints concerning interpretation into Albanian. The judgment was translated into Albanian. The applicant challenged these judgments by means of a request for an extraordinary review of a final judgment in which he reiterated his complaints about the absence of an interpreter into Albanian. With a judgment of 26 March 2012 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s request and confirmed the lower courts’ judgments. As to the applicant’s complaint regarding the interpretation provided, the court stated: “as it appears from the case file and the official note submitted by the adjudicating judge, the court considers that during the entire proceedings [the applicant] had the assistance of a court-certified interpreter into Albanian ...” The applicant stated that this judgment was served on him on 1   February   2013.   COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that he was not given the right to have the assistance of an interpreter into Albanian during the entire proceedings, which rendered the trial unfair. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Was the expert report of June 2006 drawn up by Mr B.S., the expert in the Forensic Bureau, translated into Albanian? Was the trial court’s judgment translated into Albanian? Was interpretation into Albanian provided at the hearing of 3 February 2010? If not, did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge against him, in accordance with Article 6 §§ 1 and 3(e) of the Convention? The applicant is invited to provide details as to his communication with his legal representative in the impugned proceedings.