CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 janvier 2023

.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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .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 } Published on 30 January 2023   SECOND SECTION Application no. 26760/22 Borislav ZAHARIEV against North Macedonia lodged on 27 May 2022 communicated on 10 January 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns criminal proceedings against the applicant on charges of abuse of office (director of a telecommunication company) notwithstanding his diplomatic immunity based on the diplomatic status of his spouse employed in the Bulgarian Culture Information Centre in the respondent State. At the time of the indictment the applicant held a special identity card granting him immunity from criminal prosecution, arrest or police custody. In response to his allegations that, when indicted, he had enjoyed diplomatic immunity that exempted him, under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961, from criminal prosecution, the domestic courts at three levels of jurisdiction relied on Article 42 of the said Convention and found that his immunity had ceased by the fact that he had gained personal profit from pursuing a commercial activity. The applicant, who was represented by а lawyer of his own choosing, was convicted as charged and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. As established by the courts, the applicant’s whereabouts remained unknown. Relying on the above-mentioned immunity, the applicant complains that the domestic courts’ decisions violated the fair trial guarantees under Article   6 § 1 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, was the manner in which the domestic courts applied the relevant provisions of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961 compatible with the applicant’s rights under Article 6 §   1 of the Convention?