THIRD SECTION
CASE OF SELAMI v. GREECE
(Application no. 43274/16)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
10 February 2026
 
 
 
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Selami v. Greece,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Peeter Roosma, President,
 Ioannis Ktistakis,
 Lətif Hüseynov, judges,
and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 43274/16) against the Hellenic Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 21 July 2016 by an Albanian national, Mr Kledi Selami (“the applicant”), who was born in 1984, at the time of lodging the application with the Court was detained in Trikala Prison, and was represented by Mr V. Chirdaris, a lawyer practising in Athens;
the decision to give notice of the application to the Greek Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent’s delegates, Mr K. Georgiadis, Legal Counsellor at the State Legal Council and Ms A. Dimitrakopoulou, Senior Adviser at the State Legal Council;
the parties’ observations;
noting that the Albanian Government did not make use of their right to intervene in the proceedings (Article 36 § 1 of the Convention);
Having deliberated in private on 20 January 2026,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The case concerns the applicant’s complaints under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) and (c) of the Convention that he had been deprived of legal assistance of his own choosing, and he had not been given adequate time and facilities to prepare his defence with the lawyer appointed by the court. 2. The applicant was charged with intentional homicide and other crimes. By judgment no. 65-78/2011, the Syros Assize Court found him guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The applicant appealed against the judgment. 3. On 22 September 2014, the day that the appeal hearing before the Northern Aegean Assize Court of Appeal was held, the applicant appeared in person and the presiding judge appointed an interpreter, as the applicant did not speak Greek, but only Albanian. The applicant then requested an adjournment of the hearing, stating that he had been trying to sell property in his home country to find the resources to hire a lawyer of his own choosing. The court refused the request for an adjournment as ill-founded owing to its vagueness, and – as the applicant did not have a representative – appointed Ms H.H., from the relevant list of lawyers, as his defence lawyer, in accordance with the requirements of Article 340 § 1 of the Greek Code of Criminal Procedure, as in force at the material time. The court then suspended the hearing for one hour so that the applicant and his lawyer could prepare his defence. 4. The trial resumed and while making his statement the applicant requested anew the adjournment of the hearing in order to hire a lawyer of his own choosing. The appeal court did not adjourn, and by judgment no. 46‑55/2014 found the applicant guilty as charged and confirmed the sentence of life imprisonment. 5. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Court of Cassation, represented by a lawyer of his own choosing. He complained, inter alia, about the refusal of his request by the Northern Aegean Assize Court of Appeal for an adjournment to hire a lawyer of his own choosing. He further claimed that the one-hour suspension period granted by the appeal court had been inadequate for the preparation of his defence and that the interpreter had not been made available to him and his representative during that time. By judgment no. 1339/2015 of 18 December 2015, the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law. It held that the presiding judge’s obligation was limited to the appointment of a lawyer for the defendant, that it was the lawyer’s and the defendant’s omission that they had not informed the court that the time granted was inadequate, and that, after the appointment of the lawyer Ms H.H. from the relevant list of lawyers, no request for an adjournment in order to hire a lawyer could be raised.

Article of the Convention at issue: Article 6
Outcome: violation