Published on 27 October 2025
SECOND SECTION
Applications nos. 18455/24 and 19206/24
Vladimir ZDRAVEV against North Macedonia
and Aleksandar ZDRAVEV against North Macedonia
lodged on 18 June 2024
communicated on 8 October 2025
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applications concern the applicants’ pre-trial detention and the related review proceedings. The applicants are brothers who were charged with money laundering. The first applicant is a former chairman of the Centar municipal council in Skopje.
The applicants were detained on 29 and 30 June 2023 respectively. By separate decisions of a pre-trial judge dated 30 June 2023, both applicants were placed in custody. The initial detention orders were based on the risk of the applicants absconding and interfering with the investigation.
In separate decisions dated 24 August 2023, the Skopje Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) found that the applicants’ continued detention was justified solely by the risk of absconding, given the seriousness of the charges, the potential sentence, and their assets abroad, including a hotel and companies with foreign bank accounts.
The applicants were placed under house arrest as of 15 November and 22 December 2023, respectively, when the Supreme Court (after holding public hearings in the presence of the second applicant and the applicants’ lawyers) replaced the initial prison custody orders with house arrest based on the risk of the applicants absconding.
After these dates, all extension orders issued by a three-judge panel of the Skopje Court of First Instance (“the panel”) and the review decisions issued by the Court of Appeal upon the applicants’ appeals were adopted in closed sessions.
In the review proceedings, the Court of Appeal considered the Higher Prosecutor’s submissions in response to the applicants’ appeals and decided in closed sessions, finding no need for a hearing. These submissions, which on some occasions were dated only one or two days before the Court of Appeal’s session, were forwarded to the applicants, who allege that they have received them only shortly before that court decided on their appeals.
The first applicant’s house arrest was extended on eleven occasions due to the risk of absconding. It took the Court of Appeal between nineteen and thirty-one days to examine his appeals against the extension orders.
The second applicant’s house arrest was extended on ten occasions due to the risk of absconding. On 26 April 2024 the Court of Appeal granted the prosecutor’s appeal and overturned the first-instance decision (dated 26 March 2024) which had granted the second applicant’s request for release on bail. It took the Court of Appeal between twenty-two and thirty-two days to examine the second applicant’s appeals against the extension orders.
It would appear that the applicants are to date under house arrest.
The applicants complain under Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention about: the lack of reasons for their pre-trial detention; the lack of consideration of alternative measures to detention; the lack of an oral hearing; their inability to effectively participate in the review proceedings and non-compliance with the “speedy” requirement. The second applicant also complains, under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, about the dismissal of his request for release on bail.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Was the applicants’ continued pre-trial custody and house arrest compatible with Article 5 § 3 of the Convention? In particular:
(a) Were the grounds given by the courts “relevant and sufficient” as required under this provision (see Janakieski v. North Macedonia, nos. 57325/19 and 16291/20, §§ 74-85, 14 November 2023; Ramkovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 33566/11, §§ 50-53, 8 February 2018; and Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, §§ 84-91, 5 July 2016)?
(b) Did the domestic courts consider alternative measures to the applicants’ continued house arrest? As regards the second applicant, was his request to be released on bail properly considered (see Bluks Savickis v. Latvia, no. 44570/19, § 37, 13 June 2024; and Mangouras v. Spain [GC], no. 12050/04, §§ 78-81, ECHR 2010)?
2. Was the procedure before the Skopje Court of Appeal in conformity with Article 5 § 4 of the Convention? In particular:
(a) Was the Skopje Court of Appeal required to hold an oral hearing when examining the applicants’ appeals against the house arrest orders issued in the period between 23 January and 20 May 2024, and in the case of the second applicant, when deciding on the prosecutor’s appeal against the first-instance decision of 26 March 2024 granting the second applicant’s release on bail (see Miladinov and Others v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, nos. 46398/09 and 2 others, §§ 63-68, 24 April 2014)?
(b) In relation to the above question, were the applicants able to effectively participate in those proceedings given their allegation that the Higher Prosecutor’s submissions had been made available to them only shortly before the Court of Appeal decided in a closed session, leaving the applicants with no real opportunity to comment on them (see, mutatis mutandis, Venet v. Belgium, no. 27703/16, §§ 42-45, 22 October 2019 and the cases cited therein)?
(c) Were the review proceedings before the Skopje Court of Appeal regarding the extension orders of 20 February, 22 March, 19 April, 20 May, 17 June, 22 July, 21 August and 20 September 2024 compatible with the “speedy” requirement of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (see Janakieski, cited above, §§ 88-94)?
(d) Only with respect to application no. 19206/24: Were the review proceedings before the Skopje Court of Appeal regarding the prosecutor’s appeal against the decision of 26 March 2024 granting the second applicant’s release on bail compatible with the “speedy” requirement of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (ibid)?
The parties are invited to provide information on whether the applicants are still under house arrest as well as copies of all relevant domestic decisions adopted after 20 September 2024, the legal remedies submitted against said decisions and the decisions adopted upon the used legal remedies.