CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 mars 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 } .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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s68ED4546 { margin-left:33.01pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:2.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s458C5837 { margin-left:14.51pt; margin-bottom:12pt; padding-left:2.99pt } .s6AC832C9 { margin-left:14.51pt; padding-left:2.99pt } .sBD9B073B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:53.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sEDE1233E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:49.83pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:3.67pt; font-family:Arial } .s8E8CC582 { margin-left:33.01pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:2.99pt; font-family:Arial }   Published on 3 April 2023   THIRD SECTION Application no. 29273/16 Arben KALLO against Albania lodged on 26 April 2016 communicated on 13 March 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s trial and conviction in absentia for trafficking children in 2009. In the trial proceedings, in which he was sentenced to fifteen years’ imprisonment, the applicant was represented by a lawyer appointed by his family. In 2012 the applicant was arrested in Greece and learned of the proceedings against him. Upon his extradition to Albania, he requested a retrial The request was granted. However, the applicant complains that he was not allowed to present his evidence and that his previous conviction was upheld on the basis of the evidence presented during his trial in absentia . The applicant lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court which dismissed it as unfounded on 3 November 2015. The applicant complains under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention about his trial and conviction in absentia and that he was not represented by a lawyer of his own choosing. He also complains that he received a heavier punishment than the one prescribed by law.         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 and 3(c) 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?   Was the applicant’s right to be represented by lawyer of his own choosing respected (see, for general principles, Dvorski v. Croatia [GC], no. 25703/11, § 76-82, ECHR 2015, and Martin v. Estonia , no. 35985/09, §§ 77-81,30 May 2013)?   Does the applicant have the right, under domestic law, within the meaning of Article 7 of the Convention, to benefit from a more lenient sentence introduced after he had committed the offence at issue? If so, was that right respected (see Scoppola v. Italy (no. 2) [GC], no.   10249/03, §§ 103-109, 17 September 2009, and Gouarré Patte v.   Andorra , no.   33427/10, §§ 28-35, 12 April 2016)?