CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 septembre 2024

.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 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Published on 23 September 2024   SECOND SECTION Applications nos. 34261/23 and 7877/24 Vladimir TALESKI against North Macedonia and Mile JANAKIESKI and Kosta MITROVSKI against North Macedonia lodged on 30 August 2023 and 18 March 2024 respectively communicated on 5 September 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the alleged unfairness of criminal proceedings against the applicants (a former municipality mayor, Minister of Transport and chair of a local electoral committee, respectively). The background to the case was described in Taleski and Others v. North Macedonia ((dec.), nos.   77796/17 and 5   others, §§ 4-25, 24 January 2023). At the pre-investigation stage of the proceedings, in April 2016 the President of the State adopted individual decisions on pardon ( помилување ) and rulings exempting each of the applicants from prosecution ( ослободува од гонење ) regarding the offences they were charged with (“pardon decisions”). The President relied on section 11 of the 1993 Pardon Act, which had been repealed in 2009 by way of amendments; the latter amendments were struck down by the Constitutional Court in March 2016. On the basis of a statutory provision adopted in May 2016 (“the 2016 Pardon Act”, section   11-a), the President annulled the pardon decisions (“the annulment decisions”). The Supreme Court’s panels which included judge M.L.T. finally confirmed the applicants’ convictions, holding that the pardon decisions had never created a legal effect, as they had been based on a provision which had not existed in the domestic legal order at the material time. Following the pardon decisions and before the Supreme Court decided the applicants’ cases, judge M.L.T. made public statements concerning the pardon decisions, including that they had been “unusual” and “a heavy blow to the anyhow fragile legal system” and that they had rather resembled a general amnesty. In the criminal proceedings at issue in application no. 7877/24, the applicants were not served a copy of the Higher Public Prosecutor’s submissions in reply to their appeals against the first-instance judgment. All applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that they were prosecuted, tried and convicted despite the pardon decisions, contrary to the principles of rule of law and legal certainty. They further complain about the lack of impartiality of judge M.L.T., due to her alleged preconceived negative opinion concerning the pardon decisions. The applicants in application no. 7877/24 also complain about a lack of adversariness in the criminal proceedings against them. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES A. Questions concerning both applications   1.     Were the applicants’ prosecution, trial and conviction for the offences to which the pardon and annulment decisions by the President of the State relate permissible and compatible with the principles of rule of law and legal certainty? If not, has there been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in the applicants’ cases on this ground (see, mutatis mutandis , Radchikov v. Russia , no. 65582/01, § 42, 24 May 2007; Xheraj v. Albania , no.   37959/02, §§ 51 and 52, 29 July 2008)? (a) In particular, in the light of the finding of the Supreme Court concerning the validity of the pardon decisions, were the 2016 Pardon Act and the subsequent annulment decisions by the President of the State relevant for the applicants’ cases? (b) If so, were the pardon decisions by the President of the State irrevocable? Were the annulment decisions by the President of the State based on section 11-a of the 2016 Pardon Act compatible with the principles of rule of law and legal certainty? (c) Was the 2016 Pardon Act of an individualised nature that targeted specific persons? In addition and given the short-term nature of the President’s entitlement to annul a pardon issued without regular proceedings, was the 2016 Pardon Act compatible with the principles of rule of law and legal certainty?   2.     Were the Supreme Court’s panels which dealt with the applicants’ cases impartial as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, in view of the statements of judge M.L.T. (for the relevant general principles see, for example, Ugulava v. Georgia (no. 2) , no. 22431/20, §§ 50-56, 1   February 2024, with further references)?   B. Question concerning application no. 7877/24   Were the applicants denied the right to an adversarial trial guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention, in the light of the failure to communicate to them the Higher Public Prosecutor’s submissions in reply to their appeal against the first-instance judgment (see, mutatis mutandis , Bajić v. North Macedonia , no. 2833/13, §§ 54-60, 10 June 2021)?       APPENDIX No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Represented by 1. 34261/23 Taleski v. North Macedonia 30/08/2023 Vladimir TALESKI 1959 Prilep Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia Vlatko ILIEVSKI   2. 7877/24 Janakieski and Mitrovski v. North Macedonia 18/03/2024 Mile JANAKIESKI 1978 Skopje Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia Kosta MITROVSKI 1983 Struga Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia