CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 mars 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt }   Published on 6 April 2021   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 17155/18 Vladimir PANCHEVSKI against North Macedonia lodged on 5 April 2018 communicated on 18 March 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant is former President of the Skopje Trial Court (Court of First Instance). The case concerns a search of the applicant’s home and person carried out on 5 October 2017 pursuant to an order by the Gevgelija Court of First Instance at the request of the Special Prosecutor in relation to a pre-trial investigation conducted against a third person. The applicant’s subsequent claims about the unlawfulness of the search order and the manner in which the search had been conducted were dismissed by the Gevgelija Court of First Instance. The applicant complains, relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, that the Gevgelija Court of First Instance, which issued the search order and subsequently decided on the applicant’s rights in relation to the search of his home and person, was not a “tribunal established by law” as that court had neither territorial, nor substantive jurisdiction in the matter. He further complains that the search order was unlawful and disproportionate and the manner in which the search had been conducted violated his rights under Article 8 of the Convention.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was Article 6 § 1 of the Convention applicable to the proceedings brought by the applicant concerning the lawfulness of the search order? If so, has there been a violation of his right to be heard by a tribunal established by law guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? 2.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his private life and home, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention, on account of the search of his home and person carried out on 5 October 2017? In particular, was the search of the applicant’s home and person “in accordance with the law”, did it pursue a legitimate aim and was it “necessary” in terms of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention?