CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 1 avril 2021

.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 } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Published on 19 April 2021   THIRD SECTION Application no. 4079/18 Fatos FASKO against Albania lodged on 16 January 2018 communicated on 1 April 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE On 1 February 2017 the Supreme Court, after holding a public hearing, pronounced the operative provisions of a decision rejecting the applicant’s cassation appeal against his conviction. It transpires that the Supreme Court delivered its reasoned decision on 5 July 2017. On 31 May 2017 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal with the Constitutional Court, stating that it was impossible for him to append a copy of the Supreme Court’s reasoned decision as it had not yet become available. On 7 July 2017 the Constitutional Court found that the appeal had been lodged within the statutory four-month time-limit which had started to run on 1 February 2017. However, the court declared it inadmissible as the applicant had failed to provide a written copy of the Supreme Court’s reasoned decision. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about an alleged breach of his right of access to court on account of the Constitutional Court’s rejection of his constitutional appeal.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a breach of the applicant’s right of access to court as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the Constitutional Court’s decision declaring his constitutional appeal inadmissible for failure to provide a copy of the Supreme Court’s reasoned decision (see Ivanova and Ivashova v. Russia, nos.   797/14 and 67755/14, §§   52-57, 26 January 2017)? In this connection, when was the applicant effectively served with a copy of the Supreme Court’s reasoned decision? The parties are invited to provide detailed information about (i) the applicable rules and procedure concerning the pronouncement - whether in private or at a public hearing - delivery and notification of Supreme Court’s decisions to the parties at the relevant time, and (ii) the Constitutional Court’s case-law regarding the calculation of the time-limit for filing a constitutional appeal against Supreme Court decisions at the relevant time.