Communicated on 4 September 2018
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 38823/14
Sali NUREDINI
against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
lodged on 13 May 2014
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Sali Nuredini, is a Macedonian national who was born in 1981 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Idrizovo Penitentiary. He is represented before the Court by Ms K. Jandrijeska Jovanova, a lawyer practising in Skopje.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
1. Background
On 14 May 2007 the Italian police found the dead body of the applicant’s wife in an apartment rented in his name.
On 29 January 2009 the applicant, who was represented by an ex officio lawyer, was convicted in absentia for murder by the Mantova Assize Court. He was sentenced to life imprisonment.
2. Proceedings for recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment
Following a notice from the Italian authorities, the Gostivar Court of First Instance (“the trial court”) instituted proceedings for recognition and enforcement of the Mantova Assize Court’s judgment.
On 5 November 2010, at a hearing held in the presence of the prosecutor and an ex officio lawyer appointed for the applicant, the trial court recognised the applicant’s conviction and sentenced him to life imprisonment. It also ordered his detention, due to a risk of his absconding.
The applicant, who meanwhile became aware of the judgment of 5 November 2010, lodged appeals against both the detention order and the judgment itself.
By decisions of 9 November and 29 December 2010 the Gostivar Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) dismissed both appeals and upheld the detention order and the first-instance judgment.
On 17 January 2011 the applicant lodged an appeal against the second‑instance judgment on the basis of section 407 of the Criminal Proceedings Act (“the Act”), which allowed an appeal to a third instance in life imprisonment cases. It appears that the Supreme Court had not rendered a decision upon the applicant’s appeal at the date of introduction of the present application. The applicant also lodged a request for extraordinary review of a final judgment, which was rejected as inadmissible by the Supreme Court on 1 March 2011.
3. Proceedings for reopening
On 30 November 2010, the applicant requested reopening of the recognition proceedings, arguing that the proceedings in Italy had been conducted in his absence and that he had only become aware of his conviction after the trial court had ordered his detention.
On 7 September 2011 the trial court dismissed the applicant’s request because he had not been tried in absentia in the respondent State.
The applicant appealed, complaining that the courts had recognised a foreign judgment by which he had been convicted without ever being heard, denying him the right to present his defence.
On 4 January 2013 the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal. It held that in recognition proceedings, the domestic courts did not review the foreign proceedings – they only determined a comparable sentence for which they provided relevant reasoning. The sole purpose of those proceedings was to enforce a foreign judgment, in accordance with the domestic legislation. It considered that the reopening of the proceedings, as an extraordinary legal remedy, was not applicable in proceedings concerning recognition of a foreign judgment.
On 19 November 2013 the Supreme Court rejected as inadmissible the applicant’s appeal.
On 3 June 2015 the public prosecutor refused the applicant’s request for protection of legality (барање за заштита на законитост).
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Articles 5 and 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention that he was detained and sentenced to life imprisonment without ever being able to present his defence in court.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has the applicant lodged his complaints within six months from the date of the final decision, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? The Government are requested to provide information about the outcome of the applicant’s appeal lodged with the Supreme Court on 17 January 2011.
2. Was the applicant’s deprivation of liberty by the Gostivar Court of First Instance’s judgment of 5 November 2010 in compliance with Article 5 § 1 (a) of the Convention (see Stoichkov v. Bulgaria, no. 9808/02, §§ 51-59, 24 March 2005)?
3. Was Article 6 § 1 of the Convention under its criminal head applicable to the proceedings for recognition of a foreign judgment?
4. If so, did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge against him? In particular, did the authorities comply with the requirements of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy