CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 21 septembre 2017

.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 }   Communicated on 21 September 2017   SECOND SECTION Application no. 80544/12 Fredi ALIAJ against Albania lodged on 16 November 2012 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s conviction for murder committed in aggravating circumstances (vrasje në rrethana të tjera cilësuese ) and sentence to 23 years’ imprisonment. The criminal proceedings were held in absentia before the domestic courts, where the applicant was represented by a lawyer chosen by his mother, allegedly without his knowledge. The applicant was represented by a lawyer of his own choosing only before the Constitutional Court, where he complained about his trial in absentia . He complains of a violation of his rights under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention given that the proceedings against him were held in his absence and that he was not given the opportunity to have a lawyer of his own choosing. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Having regard to the fact that the applicant was tried and convicted by the Albanian courts in absentia , do those facts disclose a breach of Article   6   of the Convention (see, in this connection, Sejdovic v.   Italy [GC], no. 56581/00, ECHR 2006-...; Izet Haxhia v. Albania , no. 34783/06, § 60, 5   Novembre 2013, Shkalla v. Albania , no. 26866/05, 10 May 2011?   2.     Was the applicant able to defend himself through legal assistance of his own choosing, as required by Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention?