CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 24 mars 2025

.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 14 April 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 23839/22 Milivoje NIKIKJ against North Macedonia lodged on 6 May 2022 communicated on 24 March 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the refusal of the Court of Appeal to hold an oral hearing in the criminal proceedings in which he was finally convicted for causing a traffic accident, despite his explicit request to that effect and after having been heard by the court of first instance in the same proceedings. The Court of Appeal found that the applicant’s appeal had been sufficiently detailed, and an oral hearing would not contribute to the establishment of the facts. QUESTION 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, has there been a breach of the applicant’s right to an oral hearing under Article 6 § 1 on account of the Court of Appeal’s refusal to hold a hearing (see Deliktaş v. Türkiye , no. 25852/18, §§ 40-55, 12   December 2023; compare also Hokkeling v. the Netherlands, no.   30749/12, §§ 56-63, 14   February 2017, and Arps v. Croatia , no.   23444/12, §§ 24-29, 25 October 2016)?