CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 octobre 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 } Published on 27 October 2025   THIRD SECTION Application no. 135/24 Aldo BARE against Albania lodged on 29 November 2023 communicated on 6 October 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns two sets of criminal proceedings against the applicant. In the first set, held before the Elbasan District Court and the Durrës Appeal Court, the charges against the applicant of organising a criminal gang (under Article 333 of the Criminal Code) were allegedly dismissed by the Durrës Appeal Court’s judgment of 21 December 2001. In the second set of proceedings, held before the Serious Crime Courts, the applicant was convicted of that charge by a judgment of 28 March 2010. In the second set of proceedings the applicant’s conviction on multiple charges was based on evidence given by witnesses outside the trial, as follows: (1) murder of G.K. and attempted murder of A.D. on 2 July 1997 – witnesses L.D., S.D. and A.D.; (2) murder of M.A. and I.B. on 22 February 1998 – witnesses M.P., P.B. and E.R.; (3) arson of Sh.H.’s property on 22 August 1998 – witness Sh.H. The final ruling in these proceedings was adopted by the Constitutional Court on 14 July 2023, and served on the applicant on 31 July 2023. The applicant complains under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) that the above ‑ specified convictions were based on statements of untested witnesses given during the investigation phase and read out at the trial. He further complains under Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 that the Durrës Court of Appeal dismissed the charge of organising a criminal gang, but that subsequently the Serious Crime First Instance Court found him guilty of the same offence, based on the same facts. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him, in accordance with Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant able to examine witnesses against him, as required by Article   6 § 3   (d) of the Convention (see Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, §§ 118-151, ECHR 2011; Schatschaschwili v. Germany [GC], no. 9154/10, §§ 100-131, ECHR 2015; and Jaupi v. Albania , no. 23369/16, §§ 97-101 and 110-146, 29   April 2025)? Was there a good reason for the non-attendance at the applicant’s trial in the proceedings before the Serious Crime Courts of witnesses L.D., S.D., A.D., M.P., P.B., E.R. and Sh.H.? Was the evidence given by absent witnesses the sole or a decisive basis for the applicant’s convictions as follows: - witnesses L.D., S.D. and A.D. for the murder of G.K. and attempted murder of A.D.; witnesses M.P., P.B. and E.R. for the murder of M.A. and I.B.; and witness Sh.H. for the destruction of his property? Did the national authorities provide sufficient counterbalancing measures for the defence?   2.     Has the applicant been tried twice, under the jurisdiction of the respondent State, for the offence of organising a criminal gang, as prohibited by Article   4 §   1 of Protocol No.   7 (see Mihalache v. Romania [GC], no.   54012/10, §§ 94-98, 102-116 and 127-133, 8 July 2019)? If so, did the proceedings fall within any of the exceptions envisaged by Article   4 §   2 of Protocol No.   7?