FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 48835/13 Zenelabedin PULA against North Macedonia

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 14 May 2019 as a Committee composed of:

Aleš Pejchal, President, Tim Eicke, Jovan Ilievski, judges, and Renata Degener, Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 25 July 2013,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

1. The applicant, Mr Zenelabedin Pula, is an Albanian national, who was born in 1955 and lives in Tirana. He was represented before the Court by Mr D. Koroveshovski, a lawyer practising in Ohrid, the Republic of North Macedonia.

2. The Government of North Macedonia (“the Government”) were represented by their former Agent, Mr K. Bogdanov, succeeded by their current Agent, Ms D. Djonova. The Albanian Government, having been informed of their right to intervene in the proceedings (Article 36 § 1 of the Convention and Rule 44 of the Rules of Court), did not indicate that they wished to exercise that right.

The circumstances of the case

3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

4. On 30 July 2004 the applicant was involved in a head-on collision with a car driven by a certain D.G. in the respondent State. D.G. was subsequently transported to hospital, where he died the following day.

5. On 8 February 2006 the applicant gave an oral statement before an investigating judge with the assistance of an Albanian-speaking certified court interpreter.

6. The investigating judge ordered the Forensic Bureau ( Биро за судски вештачења ) to draw up an expert report regarding the accident. The report stated that the offside wheels of the applicant ’ s car had swerved out of his lane causing a head-on collision with the car driven by D.G. (“the 2006 report”). At the ensuing trial against the applicant the report was served on him and his lawyer contested the findings by means of a written submission. The report was also read out at a hearing in the presence of the applicant, his lawyer and an Albanian-speaking interpreter.

7. On 4 September and 13 November 2007 the trial court heard oral evidence from the applicant and police officers S.G., A.B., M.R. and M.M., who had been present at the site after the accident. The applicant, his lawyer and an Albanian-speaking interpreter attended the hearings.

8. On 13 November 200 7 the trial court found the applicant guilty of “serious crimes against the safety of people and property in traffic” ( тешки дела против безбедноста на луѓето и имотот во сообраќајот ) and sentenced him to eight months ’ imprisonment. The relevant facts were established on the basis of the available evidence, in particular the 2006 report and the statements made by the witnesses.

9. Following a remittal of the case by the Bitola Court of Appeal ( Апелационен суд Битола ), on 3 February 2010 the trial court questioned the expert who had drawn up the 2006 report and two doctors regarding D.G. ’ s injuries and the cause of his death, in the presence of the applicant and his lawyer. A lawyer representing D.G. ’ s heirs, who had meanwhile taken over the conduct of the prosecution, was also present. The expert confirmed the findings set out in the 2006 report. The record of the court hearing contained no indication whether the applicant had the assistance of an Albanian-speaking interpreter.

10. On 9 April 2010 the trial court again found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to eight months ’ imprisonment. The court relied on the 2006 report, and the testimony of both the expert and the doctors. The judgment indicated that it was to be delivered to the applicant with a translation into Albanian.

11. The applicant appealed against the findings of the first-instance court, complaining that, inter alia , there had not been an Albanian-speaking interpreter present at the hearing of 3 February 2010.

12. In reply the lawyer representing D.G. ’ s heirs stated that that hearing had been held in the presence of an interpreter.

13. On 17 May 2010 the trial court requested the Ministry of Justice ( Министерство за п равда ) to serve its judgment in Macedonian, together with a translation into Albanian, on the applicant at his address in Tirana, Albania, by diplomatic means.

14. On 1 March 2011 the Bitola Court of Appeal upheld the judgment, finding no grounds to depart from the established facts and reasons. It did not address the applicant ’ s complaints concer ning the lack of an Albanian ‑ speaking interpreter. The judgment was translated into Albanian.

15. The applicant lodged a request for an extraordinary review of the final judgment ( Барање за вонредно преиспитување на правосилна пресуда ) with the Supreme Court ( Врховен суд ) in which he reiterated his complaints of the lack of an Albanian-speaking interpreter regarding the hearing held on 3 February 2010.

16. A note signed by the trial court judge was added to the case file on 4 January 2012 in which it was stated that a technical omission had been made in the records for some hearings, specifically that the presence of M.S., an Albanian-speaking certified court interpreter, had not been noted. The judge added that all of the court hearings had been held in the presence of an interpreter.

17. On 26 March 2012 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant ’ s request and upheld the lower courts ’ judgments. According to the applicant, that decision was served on him on 1 February 2013. The parties provided no information about the date of service on the applicant ’ s lawyer. As to the applicant ’ s complaint regarding the interpreting services provided, it stated:

“the court considers that during the entire proceedings [the applicant] had the assistance of an Albanian-speaking certified court interpreter, as is apparent from the case file and the official note submitted by the adjudicating judge ...”

18. On 26 April 2012 the trial court requested the Ministry of Justice to deliver and seek enforcement of the final judgments, translated into Albanian, through the relevant Albanian authorities.

COMPLAINTS

19. The applicant complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention that he had been deprived of the right to hav e the assistance of an Albanian ‑ speaking interpreter. In addition, he complained that the domestic courts had not provided him with sufficient fair-trial guarantees and had failed to respect the requisite procedural safeguards.

THE LAW

A. Alleged violations of Article 6 of the Convention

20. The applicant complained that the 2006 report and the trial court ’ s judgment had not been translated into Albanian, and that he had not been provided with an Albanian-speaking interpreter for the hearing of 3 February 2010. In addition, the courts had failed to provide sufficient reasons for their decision, they had erroneously established the facts, they had violated his right to be represented by a lawyer of his own choosing and they had violated his right to be presumed innocent. The Court considers that the applicant ’ s complaints fall to be examined under Article 6 §§ 1, 2 and 3 (e) , which, in so far as relevant, read as follows:

“1. In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] tribunal ...

2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.

3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:

...

(e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.”

1. The alleged lack of interpretation

(a) The parties ’ submissions

21. The Government submitted that the 2006 report had been read out at a hearing in the presence of the applic ant, his lawyer and an Albanian ‑ speaking certified court interpreter. Moreover, the applicant ’ s written objection meant that he had been able to effectively understand and contest it. Furthermore, both the trial court ’ s and the appellate court ’ s judgments had been served on the applicant by diplomatic means with a translation into Albanian. Lastly, an interpreter had been present at all hearings before the trial court. The fact that his presence had not been noted in the record of the hearing of 3 February 2010 was a technical error.

22. The applicant reiterated that he had not been informed of the contents of the 2006 report and that an interpreter had not been present at the hearing of 3 February 2010.

(b) The Court ’ s assessment

23. The principles relevant to the instant case have been set out in the case of Hermi v. Italy ([GC], no. 18114/02, §§ 69-72, ECHR 2006 ‑ XII) and, more recently, reiterated in the case of Baytar v. Turkey (no. 45440/04 , §§ 48-50, 14 October 2014).

24. The Court notes that the applicant did not complain of the lack of a translation of the June 2006 expert report in his appeal or request for an extraordinary review (see Hudson v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (dec.), no. 67128/01, 24 March 2005). In any event, the Court notes that the 2006 report was served on the applicant in the Macedonian language and he submitted his objections to it in writing. He never requested a translation of that document. Furthermore, it was read out at a hearing in the presence of the applic ant, his lawyer and an Albanian ‑ speaking certified court interpreter (see paragraph 6 above).

25. In respect of the translation of the trial court ’ s judgment of 9 April 2010, the Court notes that there is evidence in the case file suggesting that the judgment was translated into Albanian (see paragraphs 10, 13 and 18 above). In any event, the Court observes that this point was not raised in the applicant ’ s appeal or request for an extraordinary review (see Katritsch v. France , no. 22575/08, § 45, 4 November 2010; Kapitonovs v. Latvia (dec.), no. 16999/02, 5 April 2007; Husain v. Italy (dec.) , no. 18913/03, ECHR 2005-III; and Hudson , cited above).

26. As to the alleged absence of an Albanian-speaking certified court interpreter at the hearing held on 3 February 2010 the Court observes that on 4 January 2012 the trial court judge added an official note to the case file explaining that the interpreter ’ s presence at that hearing had not been noted due to a technical omission (see paragraph 16 above). The lawyer of the prosecuting party also confirmed that to be the case (see paragraph 12 above). Lastly, there is nothing to suggest that the applicant or his lawyer objected to the alleged absence of an interpreter at the hearing, or that they requested one to be provided by the trial court (see Příplata v. Romania (dec.), no. 42941/05, §§ 94-96 , 13 May 2014, and Hermi , cited above, § 97).

27. In view of all of the above considerations the Court finds that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected, in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

2. Remaining complaints

28. The Court examined the remaining complaints under Article 6 §§ 1 and 2. Having regard to all the materials in its possession, it finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that these complaints must be rejected as manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

B. Alleged violation of Article 13 of the Convention

29. Lastly, the applicant complained under Article 13 of the Convention, reiterating the same complaints as advanced under Article 6 without providing further arguments. Article 13 provides as follows:

“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”

30. In view of the Court ’ s findings concerning the above complaints under Article 6, it cannot be said that in the circumstances of the present case the applicant had a claim which can be regarded as “arguable” in terms of the Convention (see KudÅ‚a v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 157 , ECHR 2000 ‑ XI , and Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom , 27 April 1988, § 54, Series A no. 131).

31. In view of the above, the Court finds that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected, in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 6 June 2019 .

Renata Degner Aleš Pejchal Deputy Registrar President