Communicated on 7 June 2018
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 16632/15
Arian REDJEPI
against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
lodged on 28 March 2015
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Arian Redjepi, is a Macedonian national who was born in 1982 and lives in Skopje. He is represented before the Court by Ms T. Doneska, a lawyer practising in Skopje.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant was arrested on 4 July 2014 for participating in protests which turned violent. He was indicted for being a member of a group which had allegedly caused grievous bodily harm to several police officers and caused damage to the building of Skopje Court of First Instance. On the following day a judge ordered his detention on remand for eight days.
His detention was subsequently extended for another thirty days on 11 July 2014. He lodged an appeal against this decision. It is not known whether the prosecution lodged observations in response.
On 17 July 2014 a panel of Skopje Court of First Instance, sitting in private, dismissed his appeal. The applicant claims that he received this decision on 25 March 2015.
On 30 July 2014 he was found guilty by a first-instance judgment and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment.
By a separate decision delivered on the same day his detention was extended until the judgment became final.
On 1 August 2014, the applicant lodged an appeal against the decision with the Court of Appeal as the competent court to decide on appeal regarding detention following a first-instance conviction, proposing that the detention on remand be replaced with house arrest on account of his poor state of health.
On 18 August 2014 the Higher Public Prosecution submitted written observations with the Court of Appeal seeking the dismissal of his appeal. These observations were never communicated to the applicant.
The Court of Appeal, sitting in private, dismissed the applicant’s appeal on 25 August 2014. It held that the reasons justifying the extension of his detention remained and that his health problems could be adequately treated in the facility where he was detained.
The applicant’s appeal against the first-instance judgment was subsequently partially upheld by the appeal court on 18 November 2014, reducing his sentence to two years’ and six months’ imprisonment.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention that he was never heard during the proceedings for review of his detention before the panel of Skopje Court of First Instance and Skopje Court of Appeal. He also complains that the proceedings before the panel of Skopje Court of First Instance and Skopje Court of Appeal were not adversarial, since the prosecution’s written observations submitted in response to his appeals were not communicated to him.
QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES
1. As regards the proceedings regarding the decision of 11 July 2014 to extend the applicant’s detention and his subsequent appeal, were they compatible with Article 5 § 4 of the Convention? Did the prosecution submit observations in response to the applicant’s appeal, and if so, were they communicated to him? Did the applicant have the benefit of an oral hearing at first-instance, or on appeal, before the panel of Skopje Court of First Instance?
2. As regards the proceedings regarding the decision of 30 July 2014 to extend the applicant’s detention and his subsequent appeal:
(a) Was Article 5 § 4 applicable to these proceedings (see Stollenwerk v. Germany, no. 8844/12, § 36, 7 September 2017)?
(b) If so, were they compatible with Article 5 § 4 of the Convention? Were the prosecution’s written observations, submitted in reply to the applicant’s appeal, communicated to him? Did the applicant have the benefit of an oral hearing at first-instance, or on appeal, before the Skopje Court of Appeal?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy