Communicated on 9 February 2021
Published on 1 March 2021
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 52048/16
Afërdita HYSA
against Albania
lodged on 22 August 2016
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the applicant’s remand in custody on suspicion of having committed the criminal offence of abuse of public office and the allegedly insufficient reasons given by the domestic courts regarding her remand in custody.
On 5 November 2013 the Tirana District Court remanded the applicant in custody. On 27 November 2013 the Tirana Court of Appeal upheld that decision and on 19 December 2013 the Supreme Court rejected de plano the applicant’s cassation appeal.
On 14 September 2015 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal with the Constitutional Court which, by a decision of 24 February 2016, rejected the appeal on the grounds that the applicant’s remand in custody had been replaced by house arrest on 11 June 2014.
The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention that the decisions ordering her remand in custody lacked sufficient reasons and the Constitutional Court’s decision rejecting her appeal amounted to an unjustified restriction of the right to judicial review of her detention.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Did the applicant’s remand in custody comply with the requirements of Article 5 § 1 (c) and 3 of the Convention? In particular:
(a) Did the domestic courts’ decisions given on 5 and 27 November 2013 give relevant and sufficient grounds justifying the applicant’s remand in custody (see, amongst other authorities, Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, §§ 87-88, 5 July 2016, and Merabishvili v. Georgia [GC], no. 72508/13, § 222, 28 November 2017)?
(b) Did the domestic courts’ decisions contain references to the specific facts and the applicant’s personal circumstances justifying her remand in custody (see Aleksanyan v. Russia, no. 46468/06, § 179, 22 December 2008)? In particular, did they duly assess the risk of the applicant’s flight or the risk that the applicant might commit an offence?
2. Did the Constitutional Court’s decision amount to an unjustified restriction of the applicant’s right to judicial review of her detention under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (see Margaretić v. Croatia, no. 16115/13, § 120, 5 June 2014, and Oravec v. Croatia, no. 51249/11, § 65, 11 July 2017)?
The Government are invited to submit a copy of the case file regarding the applicant’s remand in custody, including copies of the prosecutor’s requests in support of her remand in custody as well as the prosecutor’s subsequent submissions made before all appellate courts.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy