Published on 18 May 2026
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 661/24
Zlatko PANKOV
against North Macedonia
lodged on 14 December 2023
communicated on 27 April 2026
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns a detention order issued in absentia in respect of the applicant and his subsequent house arrest.
On 3 July 2023 a lawyer (A.A.) notified the Skopje Criminal Court of First Instance (“the trial court”) that the applicant’s wife had authorised him to represent the applicant in a set of criminal proceedings and that since 2022 the applicant had temporarily resided in Croatia. On 10 July 2023, having appointed a legal-aid lawyer to the applicant, a pre-trial judge of the trial court issued in absentia a detention order in respect of him on the grounds of risks of absconding (finding that the law-enforcement authorities could not locate the applicant) and interfering with the investigation. On 14 September 2023 the detention order was served on A.A., who appealed against it on the applicant’s behalf. It would appear that A.A.’s several requests to inspect the case file and copy the documents therein remained unanswered. At the session of the second-instance three-judge panel of the trial court (“the panel”) held on 22 November 2023 in A.A.’s absence, the public prosecutor informed the panel that the applicant had been arrested in Croatia on 12 September 2023 and that extradition proceedings were underway. The panel dismissed the appeal but found that the applicant’s detention should be based solely on the risk of absconding.
Following nine months of extradition detention in Croatia, the applicant was brought to the respondent State on 12 June 2024 and detained. On 18 June 2024 a pre-trial judge quashed the detention order of 10 July 2023 and ordered the applicant’s thirty-days house arrest on the ground of the risk of him absconding. The applicant’s house arrest was subsequently extended on six occasions, including by a decision of 6 December 2024, on the same grounds.
Invoking Article 5 §§ 1, 2, 3 and 5 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the detention order of 10 July 2023 was arbitrary and without sufficient grounds, and that the domestic courts had not adequately reasoned their decisions for his deprivation of liberty (both in relation to the detention order of 10 July 2023 and the subsequent house arrest) and had not considered alternative measures to it. The applicant further complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings in which the detention order of 10 July 2023 was issued and confirmed were unfair, in particular (i) no oral hearing was held, (ii) he was not allowed to inspect the case file and access the evidence therein, which had not been served on him, and (iii) he had no possibility to effectively present his case.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has there been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, in view of the manner in which the detention order of 10 July 2023 was issued and its reasoning (see Vasiliciuc v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 15944/11, §§ 38-41, 2 May 2017)?
2. Was the applicants’ deprivation of liberty related to the detention order of 10 July 2023 and his subsequent 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, §§ 222-35, 28 November 2017, and Janakieski v. North Macedonia, nos. 57325/19 and 16291/20, §§ 74-85, 14 November 2023)? In this connection, the parties are invited to provide copies of any detention and/or house arrest orders in respect of the applicant adopted after 6 December 2024, any legal remedies submitted against such orders and any decisions adopted upon such legal remedies.
3. a) Was Article 5 § 4 of the Convention applicable to the proceedings related to the detention order of 10 July 2023 (see, mutatis mutandis, Oravec v. Croatia, no. 51249/11, §§ 64-65, 11 July 2017)?
b) If so, were those proceedings compatible with Article 5 § 4 of the Convention? In particular, were they adversarial, in view of the applicant’s allegation that his lawyer was not given access to the case file and the evidence against the applicant (see Selahattin Demirtaş v. Türkiye (no. 4), no. 13609/20, §§ 281-82, 8 July 2025; see also, mutatis mutandis, Miladinov and Others v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, nos. 46398/09 and 2 others, §§ 63, 64 and 67, 24 April 2014, and Mitreski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 11621/09, §§ 29 and 30, 25 March 2010)? In addition, was the trial court’s panel required to hold a hearing in A.A.’s presence (see Nikolova v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 31195/96, § 58 in fine, ECHR 1999-II; Miladinov and Others, cited above, §§ 63-66, and Mitreski, cited above, § 31)? Was the applicant given a reasonable opportunity to present his case (see Al Husin v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (no. 2), no. 10112/16, §§ 120-21, 25 June 2019)?
4. a) Was Article 6 § 1 of the Convention applicable to the proceedings related to the detention order of 10 July 2023 (see Reinprecht v. Austria, no. 67175/01, §§ 47-55, ECHR 2005-XII, and Lazoroski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 4922/04, §§ 65-66, 8 October 2009)?
b) If so, have the proceedings for issuing and confirming the detention order of 10 July 2023 complied with the requirements of Article 6 § 1? In particular, has there been a violation of the right to an oral hearing (see, for the general principles, Ramos Nunes de Carvalho e Sá v. Portugal [GC], nos. 55391/13 and 2 others, §§ 188-92, 6 November 2018)? Were the principles of equality of arms and adversariness respected, in view of the applicant’s allegations that his lawyer was not given access to the case file and the evidence against the applicant (see, among other authorities, Vorotņikova v. Latvia, no. 68188/13, §§ 21-22, 4 February 2021; Naumoski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 25248/05, § 25, 27 November 2012; and Ferreira Alves v. Portugal (no. 3), no. 25053/05, §§ 33-37, 21 June 2007; see also, mutatis mutandis, Seksimp Group SRL v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 30085/13, §§ 38-41, 15 May 2025)? Were the proceedings, taken as a whole, fair (see, mutatis mutandis, Karajanov v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 2229/15, §§ 49-64, 6 April 2017, and Bileski v. North Macedonia, no. 78392/14, §§ 34-44, 6 June 2019)?