CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 juillet 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .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 } Published on 28 July 2025   THIRD SECTION Application no. 17469/24 Florjan GEGA against Albania lodged on 18 June 2024 communicated on 9 July 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the criminal trial against the applicant on charges of murder. The applicant asked for a summary trial which would have entailed an automatic reduction of his sentence by one third. The domestic courts held that the summary trial was excluded for criminal offences liable to a life sentence. They held that irrespective of the fact that a life sentence could not have been applied to the applicant since he had been a minor at the time of the alleged offence, the decisive factor was that the criminal offence, as such, was generally liable to a life sentence. The applicant was sentenced to twelve years’ imprisonment, even though the prosecution had requested a ten-year sentence. In assessing the aggravating factors, the courts found, inter alia , that the applicant’s family was of lower social status and level of education, and therefore would not “positively influence his rehabilitation”. The applicant complains under Article 7 of the Convention that due to the denial of his request for a summary trial, he was sentenced to a harsher sentence. He further complains under Article 14 of the Convention (taken in conjunction with Article 5 of the Convention) that the domestic courts discriminated against him in assessing his sentence on the basis of his family’s social status.       QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was a heavier penalty imposed on the applicant than the one which was applicable at the time of the commission of the offence, as proscribed by Article   7 of the Convention?   2.     Has the applicant suffered discrimination, due to the sentencing considerations relied on by the national courts, on the ground of his social and/or family status, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 5 of the Convention (see Aleksandr Aleksandrov v.   Russia , no. 14431/06, §§ 17-30, 27 March 2018; Khamtokhu and Aksenchik v. Russia [GC], nos. 60367/08 and 961/11, §§ 55-59, 24   January   2017; Gerger v. Turkey [GC], no. 24919/94, § 69, 8 July 1999; and Nelson v.   the   United Kingdom , no. 11077/84, Commission decision of 13   October 1986)?