CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 26 août 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } Communicated on 26 August 2019   SECOND SECTION Application no. 17766/19 Eduard KOLA against Albania lodged on 27 March 2019 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant, who has been sentenced to life imprisonment for premeditated murder, complains about the alleged unfairness of the criminal proceedings against him. He is currently serving his sentence in the prison of Fushe-Kruja. His appeal on points of law has been pending before the Supreme Court since 10 May 2017. The main issue, in addition to the alleged unfairness of the criminal proceedings, is therefore whether there has been a breach of the applicant’s Convention rights on account of the Supreme Court’s lack of quorum to examine his appeal on points of law. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a breach of the applicant’s rights under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular: (a)     Has the applicant been denied the right of access to a court given that the Supreme Court, owing to the absence of a quorum for a significant period of time, has not examined his appeals on points of law to date? The Government are requested to provide information about (1) a possible date for the examination of the applicant’s appeal by the Supreme Court, (2) the ongoing process for the appointment of new judges of the Supreme Court and, (3) any proposed plans for dealing with the current backlog of cases pending before the Supreme Court. (b)     Has the Supreme Court complied with the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?   2.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective remedy, in law and in practice, for his Article 6 § 1 complaints, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?   3.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him? In particular, did the domestic courts give reasoned decisions concerning the applicant’s conviction?