CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 octobre 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 28   October 2024   FIRST SECTION Applications nos.   7219/23 and 14143/23 Festus Uche EZE NZE against Italy and Abdirizak ALI’ AHMED against Italy communicated on 7   October 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern criminal proceedings in which the applicants were convicted in absentia and the refusal of the Court of Cassation to reopen the proceedings. The final rejection in both cases was based on the presumption that the applicants deliberately decided to abscond since they were unwilling to attend trial and wanted to evade justice. In application no.   14143/23, the Supreme Court based its reasoning on the fact that the applicant had moved to a different country and provided a different identity to the local authorities there. In application no.   7219/23, the presumption was based on excerpts of the applicant’s wiretapped conversations in which he expressed his worry over a police intervention directly relating to him. The applicants complain under Article   6 §   3 (a) and (c) of the Convention, claiming that they were never informed about the charges against them and that the failure to reopen the proceedings hindered their right to defend themselves in person. In application no.   14143/23, the applicant also 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. The applicant in application no.   7219/23 further complains under Article   6 §   3   (b), (d) and (e) of the Convention, stating that (i) he had no time to prepare his defence; (ii) he could not examine any witnesses; and (iii) he did not have free assistance of an interpreter. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Were the applicants informed in sufficient detail of the nature and cause of the accusations against them, as required by Article   6   §   3   (a) of the Convention? In this regard, was the writ of summons served and notified to the applicants ( see Pereira Cruz and Others v.   Portugal , nos.   56396/12 and   3   others, §   196, 26   June 2018,)?   2.     Did the applicants enjoy a practical and effective defence in accordance with Article   6 §   3   (c) of the Convention during the criminal proceedings brought against them? If not, were the relevant authorities obligated to take steps to ensure practical and effective respect for the applicants’ right to due process (see Sejdovic v.   Italy   [GC], no.   56581/00, §§   81, 84 and   94, ECHR   2006-II)?   Concerning application no.   14143/23   3.     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, and compare   Sanader v.   Croatia , no.   66408/12, §§   67-68, 12   February 2015)?   Concerning application no.   7219/23:   4.     Was the applicant afforded adequate time to prepare his defence, as required by Article   6 §   3   (b) of the Convention, having regard to the fact that he did not participate in the trial (see Pereira Cruz and Others v.   Portugal , nos.   56396/12 and 3 others, §§   196-99, 26   June 2018, and Pélissier and Sassi v.   France [GC], no.   25444/94, §§   52-54, ECHR   1999 ‑ II)?   5.     Was the applicant given an adequate and proper opportunity to challenge and question the witnesses against him as required by Article   6 §   3   (d) of the Convention? In this connection, did the domestic court take the necessary steps to enable him to cross-examine witnesses? (see Al ‑ Khawaja and Tahery v.   the United Kingdom [GC], nos.   26766/05 and 22228/06, ECHR 2011, and Schatschaschwili v.   Germany   [GC], no.   9154/10, ECHR   2015)?   6.     Was the applicant afforded free assistance of an interpreter, within the meaning of Article   6 §   3   (e) of the Convention .