CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 27 October 2025   FIRST SECTION Applications nos. 27714/22 and 2254/23 Pavol SALINGER against Slovakia and Erik ADAMČO against Slovakia lodged on 20 May 2022 and 5 January 2023 respectively communicated on 8 October 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the alleged unfairness of criminal proceedings in which the applicants were found guilty, as co-perpetrators, of murder. The final decisions were rendered by the Constitutional Court on 28 October 2021 in respect of Mr Salinger (ÚS 513/2021, received on 22 November 2021) and on 27 September 2022 in respect of Mr Adamčo (ÚS 484/2022). Relying on Article   6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention, they complain that their conviction essentially was based on testimony of witnesses cooperating with the prosecution in exchange for certain benefits, in particular, immunity. They allege that the domestic courts treated those testimonies as any other piece of evidence although they were full of inconsistencies and that the courts’ decisions were insufficiently reasoned and arbitrary. The applicant in application no. 2254/23 also complains about the domestic courts’ refusal to call a defence witness, Mr B.A., whose statements could have influenced the outcome of the trial if compared to the testimony of the cooperative witness.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against them, in accordance with Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention? In particular, did the reliance by the domestic courts on evidence given by witnesses in return for benefits pose particular problems for the fairness of the proceedings (see Habran and Dalem v.   Belgium , nos.   43000/11 and 49380/11, §§ 94-96 and 100, 17 January 2017, with further references, and Adamčo v. Slovakia , no.   45084/14, §§   60, 66 and 68-71, 12   November 2019, with further references)? Namely:   (a)     Was the applicants’ conviction based solely or to a decisive degree on that evidence?   (b)     Was it corroborated by objective elements?   (c)     Did the domestic courts subject the matter to an adequate degree of scrutiny?   (d)     Was the use of that evidence at the trial accompanied by appropriate safeguards so as to ensure the overall fairness of the proceedings? In particular, is there any statutory framework or established practice in relation to matters such as immunity for cooperating witnesses and judicial control over these matters (see Erik Adamčo v. Slovakia , no.   19990/20, § 75, 1 June 2023)?   2.     As regards application no. 2254/23, was the request to examine a defence witness, Mr B.A., sufficiently reasoned and relevant to the subject matter of the accusation? If so:   (a)     Did the domestic courts consider the relevance of that testimony and provided sufficient reasons for their decision not to examine the witness at trial?   (b)     Did the domestic courts’ decision not to examine the witness undermine the overall fairness of the proceedings (see   Murtazaliyeva v.   Russia [GC], no. 36658/05, § 158, 18 December 2018)?