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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 16 September 2024   THIRD SECTION Application no. 45354/16 Arben BIÇAKU against Albania lodged on 25 July 2016 communicated on 28 August 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant was found guilty of exploitation of prostitution in aggravating circumstances and sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment. On 19 May 2016 the Constitutional Court, in a formation of six out of nine judges (three of the judges recused themselves), dismissed without prejudice the applicant’s constitutional 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 §§ 1, 2, 3 (a) and (d) of the Convention the applicant complains that there has been a breach of his rights of access to a court, equality of arms, to be presumed innocent, to examine witnesses, to a defence, to be informed of the nature of the accusation, to a trial within a reasonable time, and to a reasoned decision by the Supreme Court, and of the principle of legal certainty. The applicant further complains, under Article 8 in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, that the allegedly illegal search of his home affected his right to respect for his home.         QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     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 and to have a reasoned judgment 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 presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article   6 §   2 of the Convention, respected in the present case, on the account of allegedly being convicted based only on the witness statements (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)? (d)     Was the applicant able to examine the prosecution witnesses as required by Article   6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention (see   Al ‑ Khawaja and Tahery v.   the United Kingdom   [GC], nos.   26766/05   and   22228/06, §§ 118-47, ECHR   2011; Schatschaschwili v.   Germany   [GC], no.   9154/10, §§   100-31, ECHR   2015; and   Süleyman v.   Turkey , no.   59453/10, §§   61-66, 17   November 2020)? Has there been a violation of Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention on account of the use of the statements given by two foreign nationals during the police inquiry (see Trampevski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no. 4570/07, § 44, 10 July 2012)? (e)     Was the applicant informed in sufficient detail of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, as required by Article   6 §   3   (a) of the Convention, given that he was tried and convicted in absentia (see Sejdovic v. Italy [GC], no. 56581/00, § 90, ECHR 2006-II)? (f)     Has there been a violation of the principle of   legal certainty   on account of the Decision of the General Prosecutor of 16 October 2003 for the resumption of investigation which had already been concluded in 2000 (see Nikitin v. Russia , no. 50178/99, §§ 55-57, ECHR 2004-VIII )? (g)     Did the Supreme Court give sufficient reasons for dismissing the applicant’s appeal on points of law, 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)? (h)     Was the length of the criminal proceedings in the present case, which began in 2000 and ended in 2015, in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Frydlender v.   France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII)? 2. Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his home, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention, on account of the search of his home undertaken on 6 June 2000 (see Dragan Petrović v. Serbia , no.   75229/10, §§ 69-73, 14 April 2020)?