CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 25 mai 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sACBC61AB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt; text-align:justify } .sC83B07C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Communicated on 25 May 2020 Published on 15 June 2020   SECOND SECTION Application no. 17475/13 Shkelqim QOSJA against Albania lodged on 11 April 2012 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE Following his conviction in absentia by the Shkodra Court of Appeal in 2001, the applicant was granted leave to appeal out of time to the Supreme Court in 2010. In his appeal to the Supreme Court, the applicant complained that the Court of Appeal decision was null and void on account of its lack of impartiality. The Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s appeal, at a public hearing, finding that there had been no breach of the lack of impartiality on account of the participation of judge M.H, who had been a member of the Court of Appeal’s bench in 2001 and had decided in 1999 not to accept the prosecutor’s appeal against the security measure imposed on the applicant in absentia . The applicant’s constitutional appeal that he did not attend the Supreme Court’s hearing and that the Court of Appeal’s bench lacked impartiality was dismissed, by a reasoned decision given on 2 April 2012, by the Constitutional Court. The applicant complains that there has been a breach of Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention on account of the non-attendance by himself or his counsel of the Supreme Court’s public hearing.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has there been a breach of Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention on account of the applicant’s non-attendance of the Supreme Court’s hearing and his conviction in absentia (see, for example, Malo v. Albania , no. 72359/11, §§   28-29, 22 May 2018; Hysi v. Albania , no. 72361/11, §§ 38-39, 22   May 2018; and Cani v. Albania , no.   11006/06, § 63, 6 March 2012)? In particular: (a)     Was the Supreme Court empowered to examine the applicant’s appeal on points of facts and law and make a fresh determination of his conviction in absentia ? (b)     Did the Supreme Court hold a hearing in the applicant’s case? In particular: (i)     Did all parties attend the hearing? (ii)     Did the Supreme Court invite the applicant or his counsel to attend the hearing? (iii)     How did the Supreme Court inform the applicant or his counsel of the hearing’s date? (iv)     Did the applicant or his counsel waive his right to attend the Supreme Court’s hearing?