CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 novembre 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 } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sA875FB86 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; text-decoration:underline; vertical-align:super } .sBBAFD58A { width:112.88%; border-collapse:collapse } .s31BB263B { height:27.3pt } .s6F2124C9 { width:7.5%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s355CA239 { width:25.26%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s9B73C5B1 { width:22.5%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s5EA04B50 { width:27.86%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s922CFB6E { width:16.86%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s65561073 { height:27pt } .s8BEB5711 { width:7.5%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sCF499B1D { width:25.26%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF6BEEE4C { width:22.5%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s580AEB52 { width:27.86%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF6FEA060 { width:16.86%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 22 November 2021   FIFTH SECTION Applications nos. 22738/20 and 35558/20 Marjan JOVANOV against North Macedonia lodged on 9 June and 7 August 2020 respectively communicated on 3 November 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the applicant’s pre-trial detention in the context of the criminal proceedings against him. Between 28 June and 3   September   2019 he was remanded in prison custody. On the latter date, the order for prison custody was replaced with an order for house arrest issued on the basis of the risk of absconding and interfering with the investigation. As of 23 December 2019 until at least the date of introduction of the applications, all court orders extending the applicant’s pre-trial detention were based only on the risk of absconding and were justified in terms of the complexity of the case, the nature of the offence, the severity of the potential penalty and the fact that the applicant had possessions and family in the respondent State. It took the Skopje Court of Appeal between eighteen and thirty days to examine the applicant’s appeals against seven extension orders.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant’s continued detention compatible with Article 5 § 3 of the Convention? In particular, were the grounds given by the courts in the orders extending his house arrest as of 23 December 2019 “relevant and sufficient” (see Merabishvili v. Georgia [GC], no. 72508/13, §§ 222-25, 28   November 2017, Miladinov and Others v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , nos. 46398/09 and 2 others, §§ 45-49, 24 April 2014 and Vasilkoski and Others v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no. 28169/08, §§ 55-57, 28 October 2010)? 2.     Were the review proceedings before the Skopje Court of Appeal regarding the extension orders of 12 December 2019, 10 January, 10   February, 11 March, 7 April, 7 May and 9 June 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)?   APPENDIX   Applications nos. 22738/20 and 35558/20   No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality Place of residence 1. Marjan JOVANOV 1968 Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia Skopje