Flash News

Protesters write to Western embassies: 5 non-negotiable demands

CEC announces final election results in Kosovo tomorrow

Mathematics exam grades released

The number of people poisoned at the Police Academy rises to 64, under investigation by "Sori-AL" and AKU

Gunfight in Shkodra, two arrested, one wanted

E-TJERA

The Strasbourg Court classifies the 'Berisha' case as a priority case

Politiko 2024-11-25 13:13:50

The Strasbourg Court classifies the 'Berisha' case as a priority case

The Strasbourg Court has classified the "Berisha" case as important. In an announcement recently published by the ECHR, the 'Berisha' case was considered an important issue and was given priority in consideration.

The ECtHR has addressed several questions to the Albanian state, which are related to the procedures and judicial actions carried out in relation to the case of Berisha.

STRASBOURG QUESTIONS:

1. Has the applicant exhausted the remedies available under domestic law in relation to his complaints under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (see GB and Others v. Turkey, no. 4633/15, §§ 163-69, 17 October 2019)? In particular, the individual appeal to the Constitutional Court is an effectively exhausted tool in this respect (see Žúbor v. Slovakia, no. 7711/06, §§ 71-86, 6 December 2011, and, mutatis mutandis, Hysa v. Albania, no. 52048/16, § 54, February 21, 2023)? Are these complaints handled with the required speed? as a matter of law and/or practice? The parties are required to submit copies of relevant domestic decisions issued by the Constitutional Court, if any, with an indication of the duration of such proceedings.

2. Without prejudice to question 1, it was the procedure by which

the lawfulness of the applicant's house arrest was examined in accordance with Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (see Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, § 161, 22 May 2012; Cernák v. Slovakia, no. 36997/08, § 78, 17 December 2013; GB and others v. Turkey, no. 4633/15, §§ 174-76, 17 October 2019; and Venet v. Belgium, no. 27703/16, §§ 31-35, 22 October 2019)? In particular:

(a) Was the court of first instance that dealt with the applicant's case an impartial court?

(b) Did the domestic courts provide adequate reasons to justify his initial and ongoing house arrest?

(c) Did the applicant enjoy effective legal aid?

(d) Whether the proceedings by which the applicant sought to challenge the lawfulness of his house arrest were prolonged in accordance with the "speed" requirement of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (see Mooren v. Germany [GC], no. 11364/03, § § 106-07, July 9, 2009)?

3. there was a violation of the applicant's rights according to Article 3 of Protocol no. 1 of the Convention because of the restrictions on his parliamentary activities resulting from his house arrest (see Selahattin Demirtaş v. Turkey (no. 2) [GC], no. 14305/17, § 388-89, 22 December 2020)

Dokumenta bashkëngjitur

Latest news