CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 février 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8934192D { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .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 9 March 2026   SECOND SECTION Application no. 21139/23 Ljulzim HODA against North Macedonia lodged on 17 May 2023 communicated on 16 February 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged unfairness of criminal proceedings in which the domestic courts convicted the applicant and two other defendants (M.H. and Sh.J.) of having robbed a certain G.S. G.S. testified that all three defendants had forcefully entered the cab of the lorry which he had been driving; that M.H. had threatened him with a knife, punched him, searched the lorry cab and taken some money; that initially the applicant and Sh.J. had not attempted to stop M.H., but subsequently the applicant had taken the knife away from him; and that the applicant and Sh.J. had not searched the lorry cab or threatened him. G.S. expressly stated that the applicant had not done anything wrong but had actually helped him. The Gostivar Court of First Instance (“the trial court”) convicted all three defendants and sentenced the applicant to five years and five months’ imprisonment. Relying, inter alia , on G.S.’s statements, the court found that all defendants, acting as a group, had threatened to attack G.S. and had taken from him a wallet and other objects. The court established that G.S. had categorically stated that the three defendants had attacked him, while also quoting parts of his statements according to which the applicant had taken the knife from M.H. Lastly, the court reasoned that the applicant’s and Sh.J.’s participation in the offence consisted of stealing G.S.’s objects. The Gostivar Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court confirmed the applicant’s conviction and endorsed the trial courts’ findings. Under Article 6 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the proceedings against him were not fair, that the trial court manifestly wrongly assessed the evidence (влече крајно погрешни заклучоци од доказите) , including G.S.’s statements, that both the trial and appeal courts did not assess the applicant’s arguments and that the Supreme Court did not remedy the breaches made by them. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, were the domestic courts’ findings arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable (see   Moreira Ferreira   v. Portugal (no. 2)   [GC], no.   19867/12, § 83, 11 July 2017; compare, mutatis mutandis , in the context of civil proceedings, Khamidov v. Russia , no. 72118/01, §§ 170-74, 15   November 2007)? Did the domestic courts discharge their duty to properly examine and provide relevant and sufficient reasons for dismissing the applicant’s defence arguments (see, for general principles, Moreira Ferreira (No.   2) , cited above, §   84; see also , mutatis mutandis , Zahariev v. North Macedonia , no. 26760/22, §§ 42-51, 5 November 2024)?