CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 avril 2025

.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 } .sA2548810 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s718D1C37 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify }   Published on 22 April 2025   THIRD SECTION Application no. 33866/23 Agron LAÇAJ against Albania lodged on 4 September 2023 communicated on 4 April 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns issues under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. In the course of the criminal proceedings against the applicant on charges of murder and illegal possession of firearms, the applicant was placed in pre-trial detention by an order of 2 March 2000. He was acquitted at first instance by the Shkodra District Court on 28 February 2012. Upon the prosecution’s appeal, the Shkodra Appeal Court reversed the first-instance judgment, and on 17 April 2014 found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to 25 years’ imprisonment. Following that decision, the applicant was arrested. The appeal court’s judgment was upheld by the Supreme Court on 14   January 2016. Upon the applicant’s constitutional complaint, on 10 November 2017 the Constitutional Court quashed the judgment of the Supreme Court, and remitted the case to the latter. On 14 January 2022, after a fresh examination, the Supreme Court quashed the judgment of 17 April 2014 and remitted the case to the Appeal Court. The Supreme Court did not take any decision concerning the applicant’s detention, whereas the applicant remained in detention. At a hearing held on 10 March 2022 the Appeal Court examined, as a preliminary question, the applicant’s request for release from detention. The prosecutor agreed that the applicant’s detention based on his 2014 conviction by the appeal court was no longer valid after the quashing of that judgment on 14 January 2022. However, the prosecutor asked to place the applicant in detention pending the appeal proceedings since there existed reasons to believe that he might abscond. On 10 March 2022 the Appeal Court held that the applicant’s detention order of 2 March 2000 had “expired” on 28 February 2012. However, it also held that the applicant should be placed in detention under Article 238 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which reads as follows: “Article 238 Detention on remand [ Arresti në burg ] 1. By a decision for detention on remand, the court shall order the judicial police to immediately bring the defendant to a pre-trial detention facility to be held at the disposal of the proceeding authority. 2. The period of pre-trial detention shall be calculated as part of the imposed sentence.”   In his appeal to the Supreme Court the applicant argued that the detention imposed by the Appeal Court was unlawful since the 2012 acquittal judgment of the District Court was still in force. On 5 July 2022 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on the grounds that the detention order of 10 March 2022 was lawful. On 18 March 2022, during another hearing before the Appeal Court, the applicant submitted that the detention ordered by the appeal court on 10   March 2022 had become invalid as of 13 March 2022 since that decision had not been communicated to him and he had not been questioned within 72 hours after the adoption of that detention order. The applicant asked to be released, but that request was dismissed, and the applicant appealed to the Supreme Court. On 14 July 2022 the Supreme Court dismissed his appeal as manifestly ill-founded, holding that the applicant had been already brought before a judge when his very first detention had been ordered on 2 March 2000. On 7 and 16 November 2022 the applicant lodged constitutional complaints, alleging, inter alia , that his right to liberty had been violated. On 4 April 2023 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s constitutional complaints as unfounded. The decision of the Constitutional Court was published on its website on 4 May 2023. On 24 October 2023 the Shkodra Appeal Court convicted the applicant, but on 21 January 2025 the Supreme Court quashed the conviction again and remitted the case to the Appeal Court. The proceedings are still pending. The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 that his detention between 14   January 2022 and 10 March 2022 was unlawful since it was not authorised by any court decision. He further complains that his detention between 10   March 2022 and 24 October 2023, and after 21 January 2025 was unlawful since the only ruling which was in force during those periods was the first-instance judgment of 28 February 2012 that had acquitted him of all charges. The applicant also complains under Article 5 of the Convention that he was not notified of the prosecution’s request for his renewed detention, and that he had not been heard about it. He alleges that these complaints were raised in his appeal with the Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court did not address them.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article   5 §   1 of the Convention? Did the grounds for the deprivation of liberty between 14   January and 9 March 2022, between 10 March 2022 and 24 October 2023, and after 21 January 2025, fall within any of the paragraphs (a) to (e) of this provision? If so, what were the reasons for the detention of the applicant during these periods, given his acquittal at first instance (compare I.S. v.   Switzerland, no. 60202/15, §§ 41-61, 6 October 2020)? Were any less restrictive measures considered by the domestic courts in this regard (ibid., §   54)?   2. Was the applicant’s detention during the three periods indicated above “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law”?   3. Was the procedure by which the applicant sought to challenge the lawfulness of his detention after 14 January 2022 in conformity with Article   5 §   4 of the Convention? In particular, did the domestic courts address all of the applicant’s allegations relevant to the lawfulness of his detention, and was the principle of equality of arms respected in those proceedings?