Published on 31 January 2022
SECOND SECTION
Applications nos. 57325/19 and 16291/20
Mile JANAKIESKI against North Macedonia
and Mile JANAKIESKI against North Macedonia
lodged on 30 October 2019 and 14 April 2020 respectively
communicated on 10 January 2022
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The present applications concern detention of the applicant (the former Minister for Transport and Communications) ordered in the course of three different investigations.
On 28 December 2018, the applicant was released from prison custody, ordered in relation to the first investigation (for criminal conspiracy and elections-related offences) and was placed in house arrest, which was further extended until 26 February 2019.
On 20 February 2019 he was placed in prison custody in relation to the second investigation (for terrorism), due to the risks of absconding and interfering with the investigation. Following the applicant’s appeal, on 22 February 2019 his prison custody was replaced with a house arrest. The house arrest was subsequently extended with orders issued between 22 March and 31 May 2019.
On 28 June 2019 two decisions were issued: one extending his house arrest in connection with the investigation of terrorism, and another one ordering his prison custody in connection with the third investigation (for an abuse of office), due to the risks of absconding and interfering with the investigation. Following the latter decision, the applicant was placed in prison custody on the same day. On 1 July 2019 the Criminal Panel of the Skopje Court of First Instance quashed the house arrest, finding that two preventive measures could not exist in parallel. The applicant’s prison custody was further extended on 26 July 2019. On 9 August 2019 the applicant was again placed in house arrest, which order was extended with fifteen subsequent decisions adopted between 23 August 2019 and 7 October 2020. It took the Skopje Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court between twenty-one and thirty-one days to examine the applicant’s appeals against nine extension orders.
The applicant complains under Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 4 of the Convention about: (a) his continuous detention, be it in prison custody or house arrest, without sufficient grounds, (b) overlapping of preventive measures in the second and third investigation, and (c) a violation of the “speedy” requirement in the review proceedings of house arrest in the third investigation.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, in respect of his Convention complaints? In particular, was section 553 of the Criminal Proceedings Act an effective domestic remedy for the applicant’s complaint about the overlapping of the preventive measures, especially in view of the Criminal Panel’s decision of 1 July 2019?
2. Was the applicant’s pre-trial prison custody and/or house arrest ordered in relation to the second and third investigation “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law” within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention? In particular, was the overlap of the preventive measures compatible with the requirement of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention? In addition, was the decision of 23 August 2019 extending the applicant’s house arrest, adopted two weeks before the expiration of the thirty day house arrest ordered with the decision of 9 August 2019, in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?
3. Was the applicant’s continuous pre-trial prison custody and/or house arrest in the course of the second and third investigation compatible with Article 5 § 3 of the Convention? In this respect, were the grounds given by the courts sufficient as required under this provision (see Vasilkoski and Others v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 28169/08, 28 October 2010; Miladinov and Others v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, nos. 46398/09, 50570/09 and 50576/09, 24 April 2014; and Merabishvili v. Georgia [GC], no. 72508/13, §§ 222-35, 28 November 2017)?
4. Were the review proceedings before the Skopje Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court regarding the extension orders of 22 November 2019, 10 January, 10 February, 7 April, 7 May, 9 June, 9 July, 7 August and 7 September 2020 compatible with the “speedy” requirement within the meaning of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (see Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, § 84, ECHR 2000‑XII)?
5. Is the applicant still in prison custody or house arrest? The parties are invited to provide copies of all prison custody and/or house arrest orders against the applicant adopted after 7 October 2020, the legal remedies submitted against the said decisions and the decisions adopted upon the used legal remedies.
APPENDIX
No.
Application no.
Case name
Lodged on
Applicant
Year of Birth
Place of Residence
Nationality
Represented by
1.
57325/19
Janakieski v. North Macedonia
30/10/2019
Mile JANAKIESKI
1978
Skopje
Macedonian / citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia
Vlatko ILIEVSKI
2.
16291/20
14/04/2020