CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 juin 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s39E5096F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s54AB6003 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sFF075836 { margin-right:7.05pt; margin-left:7.05pt; border-collapse:collapse; } .sCA254627 { height:68.6pt } .s3695F815 { 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 } .s86AB2762 { height:96.1pt } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s1FF4D88E { height:68.25pt } .sA384089D { height:82.5pt } .s9C09E884 { height:81.85pt } Published on 7 July 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 17754/21 Boban VELICHKOVSKI against North Macedonia and 3 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 19 June 2025 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applications concern the alleged breach of the applicants’ right to presumption of innocence (in respect of application nos. 44620/22 and 28323/23), and the alleged unjustified refusal to award them compensation for damages in civil proceedings, including for time spent in extradition detention, detention on remand and/or in prison, resulting from discontinued criminal proceedings, in respect of all applications. With final judgments of the Supreme Court, it was held that the applicants could not be compensated, as the prosecution was discontinued due to being time-barred, not because of misconduct on the part of the authorities or acquittal. In respect of application nos. 44620/22 and 28323/23, the domestic courts further found that it was not established that the applicants had proven their innocence in the criminal proceedings; rather, the proceedings were discontinued solely on the grounds that the limitation period had expired. The applicant in application no. 40162/23 submitted a legal opinion of the Supreme Court, dated 21 March 2023, which states that an accused person whose criminal proceedings have been discontinued due to the expiration of the limitation period is entitled to compensation. The applicants in application nos. 44620/22 and 28323/23 complain under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention about the breach of their right to the presumption of innocence, while the applicants in all applications complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the refusal to award them compensation for damages in the above-mentioned proceedings. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, respected in application nos. 44620/22 and 28323/23, in particular with regard to the language used by the domestic courts in the compensation proceedings initiated by the applicants (see Milachikj v.   North Macedonia , no. 44773/16, §§ 31-40, 14 October 2021 and Nealon and   Hallam v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 32483/19 and 35049/19, §§   168-69, 11   June   2024)?   2.     Did the applicants have a legitimate expectation of obtaining compensation for the time spent in extradition detention, pre-trial detention and/or in serving their prison sentence, following the discontinuance of the criminal proceedings against them? If so, did the refusal of the authorities to accommodate such claim comply with the principle of lawfulness, pursue a legitimate aim, and employ means reasonably proportionate to the aim sought to be realised, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol   No. 1 to the Convention (see Kopecký v.   Slovakia [GC], no. 44912/98, § 35, ECHR 2004-IX; Stojanovski and Others v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no. 14174/09, §   46, 23   October   2014)?       APPENDIX No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Represented by 1. 17754/21 Velichkovski v. North Macedonia 18/03/2021 Boban VELICHKOVSKI 1969 Kumanovo, Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia Viktor CVETKOVSKI 2. 44620/22 Dimov v. North Macedonia 10/09/2022 Risto DIMOV 1958 Skopje, Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia Tome IVCHESKI 3. 28323/23 Kolev v. North Macedonia 10/07/2023 Emilijan KOLEV 1974 Probishtip, Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia Milena DUMANOVSKA 4. 40162/23 Zafirov v. North Macedonia 03/11/2023 Valentin ZAFIROV 1963 Veles, Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia Cvetanka NASTOVA List of cases