Communicated on 23 February 2016
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 28447/12
Trajan BOŽINOSKI
against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
lodged on 4 May 2012
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Trajan Božinoski, is a Macedonian national who was born in 1990 and lives in Ohrid. He is represented before the Court by Mr D. Godžo and Mr A. Godžo, lawyers practising in Ohrid.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 4 December 2011 an investigating judge of the Ohrid Court of First Instance opened an investigation against the applicant (and another person) based on a reasonable suspicion that they had committed “grave crimes against general security” (тешки дела против општата сигурност). They were suspected of entering a private holiday villa on 3 November 2011, of threatening with firearms and using firearms against several individuals who had been present in the villa at the time, and of afterwards setting the villa on fire. The investigating judge also remanded the applicant in custody for 15 days due to a risk that he would abscond and interfere with the investigation. The applicant, who was represented by a lawyer of his own choosing, remained silent. On 6 December 2011 a three-judge panel of the Ohrid Court of First Instance (“the panel”) upheld the detention order.
On 14 December 2011 the public prosecutor requested that the panel extend the pre-trial detention for thirty days. After a hearing held in private on 16 December 2011, the panel accepted the request and extended the applicant’s detention due to the flight risk and the possibility of his interfering with the investigation. According to the panel, the fact that the applicant had fled the scene after the incident supported the flight risk allegation. Furthermore, there were several witnesses to be examined.
The applicant complained, inter alia, that the public prosecutor’s request for an extension of his detention had not been communicated to him and that the reasons for his detention had not been valid, particularly because he himself had reported to the police.
On 25 January 2012, after a hearing held in private, the Bitola Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal, finding no reasons to depart from the panel’s decision. It did not address the applicant’s complaint that the public prosecutor’s request for an extension of his detention had not been served on him.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention that he was not served with the written submissions to the panel in which the public prosecutor sought to have his detention extended, and that his detention was extended without any oral hearing.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Was the procedure before the panel adversarial, in conformity with Article 5 § 4 of the Convention? In particular, were the public prosecutor’s written submissions seeking extension of the applicant’s detention on remand communicated to him?
2. Was the panel required to hold an oral hearing when extending the applicant’s detention on remand?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy