CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 25 mai 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } Communicated on 25 May 2020 Published on 15 June 2020   SECOND SECTION Application no. 31948/13 Lulzim CAKA against Albania lodged on 6 February 2013 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the domestic proceedings that have taken place subsequent to this Court’s judgment in the case of Caka v. Albania , (no. 44023/02, 8 December 2009) in which the Court found breaches of the applicant’s rights under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) and (d) of the Convention. Following the Court’s judgment in the above case, the applicant made a request for review of his conviction, which was accepted by the Supreme Court on 7 March 2012 and, as a result of which, the Supreme Court remitted the case for retrial to the Court of Appeal. Consequently, on   19   December 2012 the Court of Appeal, after having unsuccessfully attempted to summon a number of witnesses (who had either died or were living abroad), upheld the applicant’s conviction. The applicant’s cassation appeal to the Supreme Court and his constitutional appeal to the Constitutional Court were dismissed, by way of reasoned decisions, on 28   April 2015 and 6 March 2017, respectively. The applicant complains that there has been an alleged breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the unreasonable length of proceedings. In this connection, he further complains that there was no effective remedy under Article 13 of the Convention. Also, he complains that there has been a breach of Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention on account of the non-attendance of witnesses whose statements were used as evidence for his conviction. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have an effective remedy, as required by Article 35 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention, concerning the length of the proceedings (see Luli and Others v. Albania , nos. Luli and Others v.   Albania , nos. 64480/09 and 5 others, § 79, 1 April 2014 as regards civil proceedings)? The parties are invited to submit relevant domestic case ‑ law in support of their arguments. 2. Has there been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article   13 on account of the overall length of the proceedings? In particular, were the proceedings before the Supreme Court compliant with the reasonable ‑ time requirement (see Luli and Others v. Albania , cited above, §§ 93-96, and Zarjewska v. Poland , no. 48114/99, § 47 , 21   December 2004)? 3.     As regards the applicant’s conviction for the murder of P., did he have a fair trial satisfying the combined requirements of Article   6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention (see   the relevant principles in Al-Khawaja and Tahery v.   the United Kingdom   [GC], nos.   26766/05   and   22228/06, §§ 118-47, ECHR 2011 as refined in   Schatschaschwili   v. Germany   [GC], no.   9154/10, §§ 110-31, ECHR   2015)? In particular: (a)     Was the applicant able to examine witnesses B., C. and D. as required by Article   6 § 3 (d) of the Convention? (b)     What steps did the domestic courts take to secure the attendance of those witnesses? (c)     Was there a good reason for the non-attendance of those witnesses? Were the factual or legal grounds of such a reason reflected in the domestic courts’   decisions? (d)     Did the statements of witnesses B., C. and D. serve as the sole or decisive evidence for the applicant’s conviction? (e)     Did the domestic courts’   decisions indicate that they had approached the statements given by those witnesses with any specific caution? (f)     Did the domestic courts provide the applicant with procedural safeguards aimed at compensating for the alleged lack of opportunity to directly examine witnesses B., C. and D. at the trial?