CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 30 août 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } Published on 20 September 2021   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 31015/20 Zoran DANEVSKI against North Macedonia lodged on 16 July 2020 communicated on 30 August 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE After the applicant was extradited to the respondent State, he sought reopening of criminal proceedings in which he had been convicted in absentia and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment for an offence not referred to in the extradition request ( K.бр.444/15 ). His request for reopening was refused at two instances, further confirmed with a judgment of the Supreme Court of 20 November 2019 (served on the applicant on 6   February 2020) dismissing a legality review request ( барање за заштита на законитоста ) by the public prosecutor. Relying on section   77 of the Act on International Cooperation in Criminal Matters, the court held that “rehearing in the presence of the applicant is impossible because a person who has been extradited cannot be tried for any offence committed prior to his surrender not included in the extradition [request]”. The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 (a) and Article 6 § 3 (a)-(d) of the Convention.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Is the applicant’s detention since 6 February 2018 with a view to the execution of the prison sentence delivered in absentia ( K.бр.444/ 15) in breach of Article 5 § 1 (a) of the Convention (see Stoichkov v. Bulgaria , no.   9808/02, 24 March 2005)?   2.     As regards the same proceedings ( K.бр.444/ 15), did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge against him, in accordance with Article 6 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant able to take part in the hearing and to obtain a fresh determination of the merits of the charge against him, in respect of both law and fact, as required by the case-law of the Court (see Sanader v. Croatia , no.   66408/12, 12 February 2015)?