CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 26 avril 2022

.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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .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 } .s1DE04B9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 16 May 2022   THIRD SECTION Application no. 51830/16 Marjan RROKU against Albania lodged on 12 August 2016 communicated on 26 April 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the trial and conviction in absentia of the applicant for murder in 2002. In the trial proceedings, in which he was sentenced to life imprisonment, the applicant was represented by a lawyer appointed by his family. In 2014, the applicant was extradited from the United States to Albania and was made aware of his conviction. In 2015, the applicant’s request for a revision of his conviction on account of his trial in absentia was dismissed by the High Court on procedural grounds. On 30 March 2016 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s constitutional complaint regarding his trial in absentia , finding that the state authorities had done everything in their power to make the applicant aware of the criminal proceedings against him. The applicant complains under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention about his trial and conviction in absentia .       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 of the Convention, given that he was tried and convicted in absentia (compare, inter alia , Sejdovic v.   Italy [GC], no. 56581/00, §§ 81 et seq. , ECHR 2006 ‑ II; Shkalla v. Albania , no. 26866/05, §§ 66 et seq. , 10 May 2011; and Topi v. Albania , no.   14816/08, §§ 53 et seq. , 22 May 2018)?   In particular, was the applicant sufficiently aware of the proceedings against him and did he unequivocally waive his right to appear at trial and defend himself?   Did the applicant have the opportunity to obtain, after his conviction in absentia , a fresh determination of the merits of the charges against him, in respect of both law and fact?