CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 janvier 2021

.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 } Communicated on 4 January 2021 Published on 25 January 2021   FIRST SECTION Application no. 32084/19 Jamal AL ALO against Slovakia lodged on 17 January 2020 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s trial and conviction and, in particular, the role played in it by evidence taken at the pre-trial stage from witnesses who were absent at the trial, while such evidence had been taken in the absence of the applicant and at a point when he had had no legal representation. It raises issues under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) and (d) of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In   particular:   -   In view of all the circumstances, including the role at trial of the evidence taken at the pre-trial stage of the proceedings when the applicant had no legal representation, did the guarantee of fairness enshrined in Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention require that he should have had the benefit of the assistance of a lawyer from the moment of the bringing of the charges against him? If so, was that lack of legal representation remedied at the later stages of the proceedings (see, for example, Zachar and Čierny v. Slovakia , nos. 29376/12 and 29384/12, § 81, 21 July 2015)?   -   In view of the role that the pre-trial depositions from witnesses who were absent at the trial played in the applicant’s conviction, was he able to examine witnesses against him, as required by Article 6 §3 (d) of the Convention? Was there a good reason for the non-attendance of those witnesses and, consequently, for the admission of their untested statements as evidence (for recapitulation of the applicable principles see, for example, Schatschaschwili v. Germany [GC], no. 9154/10, § 119-122, ECHR 2015, with further references)? Were there sufficient counterbalancing factors to   compensate for the handicaps under which the defence laboured (ibid., §§   125-131, with further references)? Did the domestic authorities make all reasonable efforts to secure those witness’s attendance and take positive steps to enable the applicant to examine or have examined the witnesses against him (ibid., § 120, as well as J.B. v. the Czech Republic , no.   44438/06, § 56, 21 July 2011, with further references)?