CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 22 mars 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 8 April 2024   THIRD SECTION Application no. 385/22 Mirelë BUZALLI against Albania lodged on 20 February 2022 communicated on 22 March 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE In 2017 the applicant was convicted of murder, and the appeal court upheld the judgment. A cassation appeal before the Supreme Court has been pending since June 2017. It appears that ancillary proceedings before the Supreme Court on the applicant’s expedition request under Article 399/1 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure have been pending since 2021. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     What was the outcome of the ancillary proceedings? In this connection and noting the Constitutional Court’s Decision no.   102/2022, did the applicant exhaust further domestic remedies by (i) raising the length-of-proceedings complaint before the Constitutional Court or (ii) by lodging a claim for compensation, in the event of a favourable outcome of the ancillary proceedings and/or proceedings before the Constitutional Court?   2.     Has there been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the length of the criminal proceedings before the Supreme Court (see Bara and Kola v. Albania , nos. 43391/18 and 17766/19, §§ 63-73 and 85-97, 12   October 2021, with further references)?