CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 mai 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s35A4083 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } Published on 16 June 2025   THIRD SECTION Application no. 30027/19 Nikolin MARGJOKAJ against Greece lodged on 4 June 2019 communicated on 28 May 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the conviction of the applicant of murder, based on eyewitness testimonies. On 8 May 2010 a man was lured to a meeting through a fake Facebook profile and killed. Three witnesses, who saw the crime from some distance, provided descriptions of the perpetrator. On 23   May 2010 two of them were shown only the applicant’s photographs and identified him as the perpetrator, while one of them questioned why his photo was being shown. The police replied that he was suspected of murder. On 22   May 2011 one of the witnesses identified the applicant in person, among three or four other persons shown at the police station, noting that “he had a typical Albanian face”. All three witnesses recognised the applicant again during the trials. On 9 May 2012 the applicant was convicted of murder by the Athens Assize Court. On 5 December 2016, following his appeal, the Athens Assize Court of Appeal confirmed his conviction. The court rejected the applicant’s requests to order additional expert evidence (including additional DNA examination), satisfied, in particular, that the testimonies of the witnesses during pre-trial and trial were sufficient to establish the applicant’s guilt. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law, which was dismissed by final judgment no. 1745/2018 of the Court of Cassation which was finalised on 5   December 2018. The Court of Cassation held that the identification procedure and the dismissal of the applicant’s requests were part of the substantive courts’ ( juridictions de fond ) assessment and outside of its own. Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3   (d), the applicant complains that the identification was unlawful, having been conducted not in accordance with the applicable rules and procedure, given that only his photographs were shown to the witnesses. He also complains that, contrary to the official version, during the in-person identification he was the only person shown to the witness. He complains that the conduct of the identification resulted in a violation of his right to a fair trial, considering the dismissal of his requests for the further expert evidence. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair trial, considering the criminal proceedings as a whole, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the pre-trial identification procedure of the applicant and the reliance of the domestic courts on the witnesses’ testimonies in accordance with the guarantees provided by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, for instance, Berhani v. Albania , no.   847/05, §§   54 ‑ 56, 27 May 2010; and Laska and Lika v. Albania , nos. 12315/04 and 17605/04, §§ 57-68, 20 April 2010)? 2.     Was the dismissal of the applicant’s requests for further evidence in accordance with Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention, considering the manner in which the identification procedure was conducted and the arguments raised by the applicant before the domestic courts (see, for instance, Gäfgen v.   Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, §§   163 ‑ 164, ECHR 2010)?