CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 décembre 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 3 January 2022   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 25190/18 Elena DOCEVSKA-BOZHINOVSKA against North Macedonia lodged on 23 May 2018 communicated on 7 December 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns pre-trial proceedings in which a three-judge panel of Skopje Court of First Instance, following an appeal by the public prosecutor, replaced an initial order for house arrest of the applicant with an order for her detention in prison. According to the applicant, the appeal was not communicated to her. In the subsequent review proceedings of the applicant’s detention on remand, it took the Skopje Court of Appeal nineteen days to examine her appeal against the order of Skopje Court of First Instance dated 27 December 2017 extending her pre-trial detention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the procedure before the panel adversarial in conformity with Article 5 § 4 of the Convention? In particular, was the public prosecutor’s appeal communicated to the applicant (see Mitreski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no. 11621/09, § 29, 25 March 2010)? 2.     Were the review proceedings before the Skopje Court of Appeal regarding the extension order of 27 December 2017 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)?