Published on 5 January 2026
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 30078/21
Vladimir ATANASOVSKI
against North Macedonia
lodged on 2 June 2021
communicated on 11 December 2025
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the pre-trial detention of the applicant, a former Director of the Counterintelligence Agency, who was charged with terrorist threat to the constitutional order and security, in connection to an incident of 27 April 2017 when a large group of protesters entered the Parliament building (in the incident several members of Parliament, police officers and journalists were injured and material damage was caused).
From 4 December 2018 until 30 May 2019, the applicant was held in pre-trial detention, and from 31 May 2019 until 21 December 2020 he was placed under house arrest. In total, he remained deprived of his liberty for more than two years.
The detention orders issued between 4 December 2018 and 22 January 2019 were based on the risks of absconding, interfering with the investigation and witnesses and the risk of reoffending. On 22 January 2019 the Court of Appeal found that the risk of reoffending was no longer relevant, but it upheld the risks of absconding and of the applicant interfering with the investigation. From 16 August 2019, the applicant’s house arrest was based solely on the risk of absconding, as the criminal investigation had been completed.
Throughout the entire period of his detention, the risk of the applicant’s absconding was assessed with reference to the nature and seriousness of the offences under investigation, the gravity of the charges, his level of criminal responsibility and the anticipated penalty. The courts also relied on the facts that the applicant had not formed a family, was unemployed, had a sister living in Slovenia and frequently travelled to Bulgaria, as factors supporting the risk of absconding. The domestic courts dismissed the applicant’s arguments that one and a half years had passed since the incident and the start of his detention, and that, had he intended to abscond, he would have already done so.
On 21 December 2020 the applicant was released from house arrest and placed under preventive measures, including judicial supervision, restrictions on travel outside his city, and confiscation of his passport.
The applicant complains under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that his pre-trial detention and house arrest were unduly prolonged, that the domestic courts failed to provide relevant and sufficient reasons for maintaining his detention and house arrest, and that the detention and house arrest orders relied on stereotyped formulae.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Was the applicant’s continued pre-trial custody and house arrest compatible with Article 5 § 3 of the Convention? In particular, were the grounds given by the courts “relevant and sufficient” as required under this provision (see Merabishvili v. Georgia [GC], no. 72508/13, §§ 222-25, 28 November 2017; Radonjić and Romić v. Serbia, no. 43674/16, §§ 61-70, 4 April 2023; Miladinov and Others v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, nos. 46398/09, 50570/09 and 50576/09, §§ 45-49, 24 April 2014, and Vasilkoski and Others v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 28169/08, §§ 55-57, 28 October 2010)?