CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 1 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 } .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 21 July 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 25377/19 Oliver SPASOVSKI against North Macedonia lodged on 7 May 2019 communicated on 1 July 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns criminal proceedings against the applicant for theft, and the alleged unfairness of those proceedings. Following several remittals, the second-instance court again remitted the case for a fresh examination before a newly composed panel of the trial court. The newly composed panel of the trial court, however, declined to rehear the witnesses and the victim, relying instead on the transcripts of their statements previously given before a differently composed panel of the same court. This was despite the applicant’s express request that they be re-heard due to the change in the trial court’s composition. The applicant was convicted of theft and was sentenced to one year imprisonment, suspended for a period of two years, which was upheld by the second-instance court. The applicant complains under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention that the criminal proceedings against him were unfair, in that the witnesses were not heard directly by the panel of the trial court which convicted him.       QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him, within the meaning of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention, given that the trial court panel which convicted him did not hear the witnesses directly (see Chernika v. Ukraine , no.   53791/11, §§   47-   50, 12   March 2020; Cutean v. Romania , no. 53150/12, §§ 60-61, 2   December 2014; Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos.   26766/05 and 22228/06, §   118, ECHR 2011 and Graviano   v.   Italy , no.   10075/02, §   38, 10   February 2005)?