Published on 15 June 2026
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 7099/24
Zharko HADJI-ZAFIROV against North Macedonia
and 3 other applications
(see list appended)
communicated on 26 May 2026
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applications concern the alleged unlawful surveillance of the applicants’ telephones. The background of the case was described in Taleski and Others v. North Macedonia ((dec.), nos. 77796/17 and 5 others, §§ 5-8, 24 January 2023).
In 2017 the Special prosecutor for prosecution of cases related to and arising from the content of the unlawful interception of communications filed an indictment against several individuals, including high-ranking officials from the Directorate of Security and Counterintelligence (UBK), in relation to allegations of a large-scale unlawful monitoring of communications and destruction of the technical equipment for communication interceptions. Subsequently, the prosecution was taken over by the Prosecutor for organised crime and corruption. The defendants were charged, inter alia, with criminal conspiracy and abuse of office (Articles 394 and 353 of the Criminal Code). It was alleged that the former director of UBK conspired with other officials with the aim of conducting a large-scale unlawful monitoring of communications in the period between 2008 and 2015.
Between 2018 and 2021 the Skopje Criminal Court of First Instance (hereinafter “the trial court”) held over 50 hearings. The applicants, except for the applicant in application no. 21039/24, either raised a civil-party claim in written submissions with the trial court or during their testimony at the trial. On 26 February 2021 the trial court convicted the defendants as charged. It instructed all applicants to pursue their civil-party claims (or in the case of the applicant in application no. 21039/24, a potential civil-party claim) against the defendants in civil proceedings. On 5 December 2022 the Skopje Court of Appeal granted the defendants appeals and quashed the first-instance judgment, remitting the case back to the trial court.
In the meantime, on 6 September 2023 Parliament adopted the Law on amending and supplementing the Criminal Code (Official Gazette, no. 188/2023, “the 2023 Criminal Code amendments”), which, inter alia, reduced the maximum sentences for the criminal offences of criminal conspiracy and abuse of office.
On 17 October 2023 the trial court decided to stay the proceedings against the defendants regarding the charges that related to the unlawful interception of communications because after the 2023 Criminal Code amendments the criminal prosecution of those offences became time-barred. The applicants were instructed to pursue any civil-party claim in civil proceedings.
The applicants complain under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention that they have been unable to obtain redress in court proceedings due to the legislative amendments to the Criminal Code which had been incompatible with the principle of legal certainty and had been enacted during the pending criminal proceedings.
Relying on Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention the applicants complain that the laws allowing for communication surveillance and the 2023 Criminal Code amendments did not meet the quality of law requirements as they did not comply with the requirements of foreseeability and lacked safeguards against arbitrary interference. They further submit that the respondent State did not comply with its positive obligations under Article 8 of the Convention and that the 2023 amendments to the Criminal Code prevented the further prosecution of the criminal offences where the applicants were injured party, which was a result of the failed quality of the law test, and a failure to provide redress to the victims.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Does Article 6 § 1 of the Convention apply under its civil limb to the criminal proceedings against the officials from the Directorate of Security and Counterintelligence (UBK) (see Fabbri and Others v. San Marino [GC], nos. 6319/21 and 2 others, §§ 76-93, 24 September 2024)?
If yes, has there been a violation of the applicants’ right of access to a court under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in relation to civil-party claims brought in the ambit of criminal proceedings (ibid, §§ 128-40)?
In particular:
(a) Has the discontinuance of the criminal proceedings been the result of a serious dysfunction of the domestic system? Has the very essence of the right of access to a court been impaired?
(b) Did the applicants have other avenues at their disposal (for example a civil action for compensation outside of the context of criminal proceedings) to have their civil rights asserted?
2. As regards the complaint under Article 8 of the Convention, have the applicants exhausted domestic remedies as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, would a civil action for compensation outside of the context of criminal proceedings be an adequate and effective remedy in respect of their complaints under Article 8 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Vraniskoski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (dec.), no. 39168/03, 22 June 2010; Svetina v. Slovenia, no. 38059/13, § 60, 22 May 2018; and Sigurður Einarsson and Others v. Iceland, no. 39757/15, § 124, 4 June 2019)?
3. Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to respect for their private life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention?
(a) In particular, has there been an interference by the State with the applicants’ right to respect for their private life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention?
(b) If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2 (see, for general principles, Roman Zakharov v. Russia [GC], no. 47143/06, §§ 227-234, ECHR 2015; and Big Brother Watch and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 58170/13 and 2 others, § 332-339, 25 May 2021)?
(c) Did the situation complained of give rise to the State’s positive obligations under Article 8 of the Convention and if so, have they been complied with (see, mutatis mutandis, Khadija Ismayilova v. Azerbaijan, nos. 65286/13 and 57270/14, §§ 108-32, 10 January 2019)?
4. Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Article 8, as required by Article 13 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Association for European Integration and Human Rights and Ekimdzhiev v. Bulgaria, no. 62540/00, §§ 99-102 102, 28 June 2007)?
The parties are also invited to inform the Court about any factual developments concerning the present applications and the situation complained of.
APPENDIX
No.
Application no.
Case name
Lodged on
Applicant
Year of Birth
Place of Residence
Represented by
1.
7099/24
Hadji-Zafirov v. North Macedonia
01/03/2024
Zharko HADJI-ZAFIROV
1977
Skopje
Aleksandar GODJO
2.
8086/24
Mladenovski v. North Macedonia
05/03/2024
Toni MLADENOVSKI
1978
Kriva Palanka
Zharko HADJI-ZAFIROV
3.
9649/24
Damev and Kabashi v. North Macedonia
15/03/2024
Mladen DAMEV
1972
Skopje
Gjakush KABASHI
1984
Skopje
Zharko HADJI-ZAFIROV
4.
21039/24
Verushevski v. North Macedonia
10/07/2024
Zoran VERUSHEVSKI
1959
Skopje
Aleksandar GODJO