CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 mai 2024

.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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s1DE04B9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 3 June 2024   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 30596/22 Alexander Carlos ROCHA CARMELINO against Portugal lodged on 17 June 2022 communicated on 17 May 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s trial and conviction in absentia for aggravated theft. He was sentenced to four years and six months’ imprisonment by a judgment of the Sintra Criminal Court of 22 September 2015. After he had been served with that judgment in 2021, he appealed before the Lisbon Court of Appeal seeking that the trial court’s judgment be declared null and void because he had not been notified of the dates of the trial. He further requested that the proceedings before the Sintra Criminal Court be reopened or, alternatively, to be heard by the Lisbon Court of Appeal and given the possibility to provide evidence in his defence. With a decision of 26 October 2021 the Lisbon Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s requests. On 15 February 2022 it upheld the trial court’s judgment of 22 September 2015. Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention, the applicant complains of unfairness of the proceedings in which he was convicted in   absentia and about the denial to have a new trial or be given the possibility to be heard and provide evidence before the Court of Appeal.         QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Having regard to the general principles concerning trial in absentia established by the Court (see Sejdovic v. Italy [GC] , no. 56581/00, §§ 81-89, 1 March 2006; Shkalla v. Albania , no. 26866/05, §§ 66-70, 10 May 2011; and Topi v. Albania , no. 14816/08, § 53, 22 May 2018), did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge against him, in accordance with Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention?   In particular:   1.     Bearing in mind that the Court is the master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case (see Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, § 124, 20 March 2018), was the applicant informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, as required by Article   6 §   3   (a) of the Convention? Did the applicant unequivocally waive his right to appear in court? In the affirmative, was the applicant’s waiver surrounded by a minimum of guarantees commensurate to its importance, without running counter to any important public interest (see Sejdovic , cited above, §§   86 and 89, and Da Luz Domingues Ferreira v.   Belgium , no.   50049/99, § 54, 24 May 2007)?   2.     Was the applicant able to take part in the hearing and to obtain, after his conviction in absentia , a fresh determination of the merits of the charge against him, in respect of the facts of the case (see Sejdovic , cited above, §   84, and Sanader v.   Croatia , no. 66408/12, §§ 77-78, 12 February 2015)?