CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 août 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 } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s1DE04B9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 1 September 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 14213/22 Irena IVANOVSKA against North Macedonia lodged on 7 March 2022 communicated on 12 August 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the temporary restriction imposed by the domestic trial court on the applicant’s communication with her brother during the criminal proceedings in which they were both co-accused. In the context of a pre-trial investigation into an IT company, on suspicion of abuse of duty, a search was carried out at the company’s premises. The applicant, who was professionally involved with the company and present on the day of the search, had two mobile phones seized by the authorities. Later, she became a suspect in the investigation. On 20 September 2021, the trial court imposed preventive measures against her to ensure her presence at the trial. Those included home detention, a weekly obligation to report to the court under judicial supervision, temporary restrictions on her contact with her brother, and the temporary seizure of her passport. Those measures are allegedly still in force. The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention that the restrictions imposed on her communication with her brother during the criminal proceedings interfered with her right to respect for her private and/or family life.       QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Did the restriction on communication between the applicant and her brother during the criminal proceedings amount to an interference with the applicant’s rights under Article 8 of the Convention? If so, was that interference ‘in accordance with the law’, did it pursue a legitimate aim, and was it ‘necessary in a democratic society’, as required by Article 8 § 2? In particular, was the restriction proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued (see Mustafa and Armağan Akın   v.   Turkey , no.   4694/03,   §§   19-20, 6   April   2010?