CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 16 juillet 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt }   576 16.07.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT GORGIEVSKI v. THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Gorgievski v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (application no.   18002/02).   The Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Articles 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights. ( The judgment is available only in English. )   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Ljupco Gorgievski, is a Macedonian national who was born in 1962 and lives in Kriva Planka (“the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”). He worked as a sanitary inspector at a border post near the city of Delčevo. On 29 July 1999, Mr. Gorgievski took a sum of money from a local businessman in exchange of his promise to facilitate some administrative procedures relating to the import of goods. The businessman had previously alerted the police and the applicant was arrested shortly after the payment. The same day he was remanded in custody for a month. On 11 February 2000, Mr Gorgievski was sentenced to three months imprisonment. He appealed the judgment arguing that he was the victim of entrapment and that the trial court had not taken into consideration the statements of capital defence witnesses. On 27 September 2000 the Štip Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s claim finding that the trial court had correctly established the facts and applied the law. It also rejected the entrapment allegations. The appeal judgement was upheld by the Supreme Court.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 13 March 2002 and declared admissible on 6 May 2008.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Peer Lorenzen (Denmark), President , Rait Maruste (Estonia), Karel Jungwiert (the Czech Republic), Mark Villiger (Liechtenstein), Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre (Monaco), Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska (“the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”), Zdravka Kalaydjieva (Bulgaria), judges , and also Claudia Westerdiek , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaint   Under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d), the applicant alleged that he had been entrapped by an agent provocateur , that the Court of Appeal’s refusal to hear some capital witnesses had violated the principle of equality of arms and that its decision was not sufficiently reasoned.   Decision of the Court   The Court recalls that while Article 6 guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules as to the admissibility of evidence, in particular the hearing of witnesses, which is a matter to be primarily regulated under domestic law. It also recalls that the use of undercover agents in criminal cases is not prohibited as long as it does not amount to an instigation to commit an offence which would otherwise not be committed.   In the present case, the domestic courts found that the businessman did not incite Mr   Gorgievski to request a bribe but only reported the facts to the police and accepted to participate in the organisation of the applicant’s arrest. The proceedings before the domestic courts were adversarial and the courts’ findings were based on documentary evidence as well as on the hearing of several witnesses, including two called by the defence. The fact that a new witness was not called before the Court of Appeal, which wrongly believed that he had already made a statement before the trial court, is irrelevant because his testimony related to events which followed the taking of the money. The Court therefore sees no reasons to depart from the national courts’ findings and concludes that there has been no violation of Articles 6   §§   1 and 3   (d).     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Stefano Piedimonte (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Frédéric Dolt (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.