CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 mai 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 } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 22 May 2023   SECOND SECTION Application no. 35420/19 Vladimir DIMKOVIKJ against North Macedonia lodged on 25 June 2019 communicated on 3 May 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged unfairness of the criminal proceedings against the applicant on account of the lack of reasons provided by the domestic courts in their judgments, by which the applicant was convicted for breach of safety in respect of a neighbour under section   144(1) of the Criminal Code and was imposed a monetary fine. Relying on the statements made by the witnesses proposed by the neighbour including her own statement, courts at two levels of jurisdiction found the applicant guilty of the above offence. The courts remained silent as to why the statements made at a hearing by the witnesses proposed by the applicant were not taken into account. Two of those witnesses made statements that the applicant had been elsewhere at the relevant time, while another witness, an immediate neighbour to the parties, stated that he had not heard any conflict at the time. Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant complains about the failure of the domestic courts to provide reasoning for not considering the witness evidence relied on by him.       QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the courts give attention to the validity, credibility or relevance of the witness evidence submitted by the applicant? Have any inconsistencies in the witness evidence been addressed by the domestic courts and did their decisions provide adequate reasoning (see Nechiporuk and Yonkalo v.   Ukraine , no. 42310/04, §§ 272 and 280, 21 April 2011, Rostomashvili v.   Georgia , no. 13185/07, §§ 54-60, 8 November 2018; and Zhang v.   Ukraine , no. 6970/15, §§ 56-74, 13 November 2018)?