CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 juillet 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .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 } Published on 21 July 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 36967/22 Ivo ILIEV against North Macedonia lodged on 20 July 2022 communicated on 2 July 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns the applicant’s inability to obtain a retrial following his criminal conviction in proceedings in which he did not participate. The applicant was convicted of causing a traffic accident and sentenced to a fine by the first-instance court in summary criminal proceedings, without a hearing being held. He submits that he was not aware of those proceedings and that the judgment was never served on him. After receiving a warning to pay the fine, the applicant lodged a request to have the criminal proceedings reopened on the ground that he had been tried in absentia . He relied on section 456 of the Criminal Proceedings Act, which provided for the right to request the reopening of the proceedings to anyone who had been tried in accordance with section 365 paragraph 3 (under the latter provision, a defendant may be tried in absentia only if he or she is on the run or is otherwise not available to the authorities and if there are particularly important reasons to try him or her in his or her absence). The domestic courts at two levels declared that request inadmissible, finding that the applicant had not been tried under section 365 paragraph 3 of the Criminal Proceedings Act, thus, section 456 was not applicable. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that he was not able to obtain a retrial following his conviction in absentia .         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 of the Convention, on account of the fact that he was convicted in his absence and that his request for the reopening of those proceedings was denied (see Sejdovic v. Italy [GC] , no.   56581/00, §§ 81-84, 1 March 2006; Sanader v.   Croatia , no. 66408/12, §§   67-69 and 71-74, 12 February 2015; and Yeğer v.   Turkey , no. 4099/12, §§   30 and 32-36, 7 June 2022 ) ?