CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 octobre 2023

.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 6 November 2023   SECOND SECTION Application no. 55849/20 Aleksandar CVETKOSKI against North Macedonia lodged on 10 December 2020 communicated on 19 October 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the deprivation of liberty of the applicant, a person of unsound mind. On 21 January 2015 the panel of the trial court ordered an indefinite security measure – compulsory psychiatric treatment and confinement in a medical institution of a closed type – against the applicant, who suffered from schizophrenia and had tried to kill his brother. On   20 December 2019 the medical institution requested the trial court to amend the order and release the applicant on condition that he undergoes compulsory psychiatric treatment at liberty. The request was based on the applicant’s good behaviour, his willingness to recover and his good relations with the personnel and other patients in the hospital as well as with his family including his brother. The medical institution’s psychiatric panel unanimously supported the proposal for his release. Two medical institution’s experts heard by the trial court noted that the applicant had not been aggressive, had been respecting the socio-cultural norms, had successfully participated in competitions and that the proposal was made with the aim of his faster re-socialisation and reintegration. The domestic courts at two levels of jurisdiction dismissed this request, finding that, inter alia , there was no evidence that the applicant would not reoffend if released given that he would need to live again together with his brother. On 26 April 2021, following a new motion by the medical institution, the applicant was released and receives psychiatric treatment at liberty. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Was the applicant’s continued confinement following the request of 20   December 2019 in breach of Article 5 § 1? In particular, was it lawful and justified under sub-paragraph (e) of Article 5 § 1 (see Trajče Stojanovski v.   the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no. 1431/03, §§ 27-37, 22   October 2009,   Ťupa v. the Czech Republic , no. 39822/07, §§   45-61, 26   May 2011, and   Ilnseher v. Germany [GC], nos. 10211/12 and 27505/14, §§ 126-34, 4 December 2018)?