CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 août 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 16 September 2024   THIRD SECTION Application no. 10024/17 Klaidin BITRAJ against Albania lodged on 31 January 2017 communicated on 28 August 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant was found guilty of murder in conspiracy with others and of unlawful possession of firearms, and sentenced to 25 years’ imprisonment. During the retrial before the Court of Appeal, the applicant who was living in Italy, was represented by a lawyer chosen by his family. On 16 June 2014 he submitted a request to be personally present during the judicial proceedings, but the request was not taken into account. On 4 August 2016 the Constitutional Court, in a formation of seven out of nine judges (two of the judges recused themselves), dismissed without prejudice the applicant’s complaint because it could not reach the required five judge majority. The applicant was informed of the possibility, under section 74 of the Constitutional Court Act, to lodge a fresh complaint at a later time. Relying on Article 6 of the Convention the applicant complains of violation of his right to a fair trial, of access to a court, equality of arms, to defend himself in person, to be presumed innocent, to a reasoned decision by the Court of Appeal and of the principle of legal certainty. 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 of the Convention? In particular: (a)     Has there been a breach of the applicants’ right of access to a court on account of the Constitutional Court’s failure to reach the five-judge majority on any of the complaints (see Marini v. Albania , no. 3738/02, §§ 118-23, 18 December 2007)? (b)     Was the principle of equality of arms respected in the criminal proceedings against the applicant   ( see Borisova v. Bulgaria , no.   56891/00, §§   47-48, 21   December 2006, and   Topić   v. Croatia , no.   51355/10, §§   40-49, 10   October 2013)? (c)     Was the applicant able to   defend himself, as required by Article   6 §   3   (c) of the Convention (see Zana v. Turkey judgment of 25   November 1997,   Reports   1997-VII, p. 2539, § 10)? (d)     Was the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article   6 §   2 of the Convention, respected in the present case, on the account of lack of sufficient evidence (see, for relevant general principles,   Poletan and Azirovik v.   the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no.   26711/07   and 2 others, §§   63-64, 12 May 2016, with further references)? (e)     Did the Court of Appeal give sufficient reasons for dismissing the applicant’s appeal, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see   Ajdarić v. Croatia , no.   20883/09, § 51, 13 December 2011, and   Rostomashvili v. Georgia , no.   13185/07, § 59, 8 November 2018)?