CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 27 novembre 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 } Published on 18 December 2023   FIRST SECTION Application no. 52638/15 Gazmir SHAHI against Italy lodged on 16 October 2015 communicated on 27 November 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns criminal proceedings in which the applicant was convicted in absentia and the refusal by the Court of Cassation to reopen the proceedings. The final rejection was based on the assumption that the applicant deliberately decided to abscond since he should have known that, following the seizure of a substantial amount of cocaine found on him, proceedings were going to take place. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention claiming that his conviction in absentia and the failure to reopen the proceedings deprived him of a fair hearing and of access to a tribunal. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge against him (see Yeğer v. Turkey , no.   4099/12, §   30, 7   June 2022)? Was he able to take part in new hearings and to obtain a fresh determination on 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, §§67-68, 12   February   2015)?   2.     Having regard to the fact that the applicant was tried and convicted in absentia , did he have effective access to court as guaranteed by Article 6   §   1 of the Convention (see Sejdovic v. Italy [GC], no. 56581/00,   §§   81-95 and 99, ECHR 2006-II)? In particular: (a) Did the judgment of the Court of Cassation (R.G. 6930/2014   of 21   April 2015 no. 588/2015) constitute an unjustified denial of the applicant’s right of access to a new hearing on the merits (see   Topi v.   Albania , no.   14816/08, § 53, 22   May   2018)? (b) Was it unequivocally established that the applicant had waived his right to participate in his trial (see Lena Atanasova v. Bulgaria , no. 52009/07,   §   52, 26   January 2017)?