CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 23 février 2024

.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 } .s65E06E64 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 11 March 2024   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 48303/21 Aleš FAJSTAVR against the Czech Republic lodged on 23 September 2021 communicated on 23 February 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the criminal proceedings held in 2016-2020, in which the applicant was convicted of drug trafficking in connection with an organized group operating in several countries, and sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment. The domestic courts relied mainly on the testimony of the applicant’s co ‑ accused, N.M., who had been granted the status of a “cooperating accused” by the public prosecutor. Her testimony was corroborated by other evidence which was mainly related to the role of another member of the group. On the basis of her confession, N.M., who had been facing up to eighteen years in prison, was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. The Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s constitutional appeal as manifestly ill-founded (II. ÚS 617/21). Relying on Article 6 of the Convention, the applicant complains that his conviction was based on unreliable statements of his co-accused, who cooperated with the criminal authorities in exchange for a reduction of her sentence.       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 applicant’s conviction based solely or to a decisive degree on the statements of N.M., who was granted the status of a cooperating accused? Was this evidence corroborated by objective elements and were there appropriate procedural safeguards allowing a proper assessment of its reliability (see Habran and Dalem v. Belgium , nos. 43000/11 and 49380/11, § 105, 17 January 2017; Adamčo v. Slovakia , no.   45084/14, § 71, 12   November 2019; and Erik Adamčo v. Slovakia , no. 19990/20, § 76, 1   June 2023)? - Did the domestic authorities subject the matter to an appropriate degree of scrutiny, with an intensity commensurate with the importance of the benefit that N.M. received in return (see, mutatis mutandis , Erdem v.   Germany , no. 38321/97, 9 December 1999; Cornelis v. the Netherlands , no. 994/03, 25 May 2004; Xenofontos and others v. Cyprus , nos. 8725/16, 74339/16 and 74359/16, 25 October 2022; and Pirtskhalava and Tsaadze v.   Georgia , no. 29714/18, § 58, 23 March 2023)?