CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 novembre 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } Published on 1 December 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 26734/21 Mile JANAKIESKI against North Macedonia lodged on 18 May 2021 communicated on 10 November 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the allegedly unlawful and unjustified house arrest of the applicant, a former Minister in the Government of the respondent State, in the context of criminal proceedings for abuse of office. 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 а decision on pardon ( помилување ) and a ruling exempting the applicant, among other persons, from prosecution ( ослободува од гонење ) regarding the offence that he was charged with (“pardon decision”). The President relied on section 11 of the 1993 Pardon Act, which had been repealed in 2009 by way of amendments; the latter amendments were struck down by the Constitutional Court in March 2016.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 subsequently annulled the pardon decision (“the annulment decision”). On 23 February 2021, upon a request of a public prosecutor, a three-judge panel issued a house arrest order in respect of the applicant, without hearing him, on account of a risk of absconding. On the same day the prosecutor gave a statement to the media that he had been informed that the applicant’s house arrest ordered in another set of proceedings could no longer be extended, that he had sufficient evidence to obtain a conviction and that he wished to be “on the safe side” ( сакам да бидам раат и чист ). The house arrest was subsequently extended on 25 March and 23 April 2021. The applicant complains under Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention that his house arrest was unlawful and ordered in contravention with the principles of legal certainty and rule of law, in view of the pardon which had allegedly been unlawfully annulled; that it was arbitrary and in bad faith; that the domestic courts did not sufficiently justify their decisions; and that he was not brought before the three-judge panel which had ordered his house arrest and therefore his house arrest was not ordered in adversarial proceedings. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant’s house arrest, ordered in the context of the criminal proceedings subject to the pardon and annulment decisions by the President of the State, “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law” within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see Lexa v. Slovakia , no.   54334/00 ,   §§   120 et seq., 23 September 2008)?   In particular, what was the basis in domestic law of the pardon decision by the President of the State? Was the pardon decision irrevocable? Was the annulment decision 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?   And was the applicant’s house arrest arbitrary and thus in breach of Article   5 § 1 of the Convention (see, for the general principles, Magnitskiy and Others v. Russia , nos.   32631/09   and   53799/12, §§   198-200, 27 August 2019; see also Ugulava v. Georgia , no. 5432/15, §§   79-83, 9 February 2023)?   2. Was the applicant’s house arrest compatible with Article 5 § 3 of the Convention? In this respect, were the grounds given by the courts relevant and sufficient, as required by this provision (see Merabishvili v.   Georgia   [GC], no.   72508/13, §§ 222-30, 28   November 2017; Buzadji v.   the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, § 102, 5 July 2016; Idalov v.   Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 139-41 and 144-45, 22 May 2012; and Janakieski v. North Macedonia , nos. 57325/19 and 16291/20, §§ 77-84, 14   November 2023)? In addition, was the applicant brought before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power, as required by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see, for example, Aquilina v. Malta [GC], no. 25642/94, § 50, ECHR 1999-III)?   The parties are invited to provide copies of any decisions on deprivation of liberty issued in respect of the applicant after 23 April 2021, of any legal remedies submitted against such decisions and of any decisions adopted upon such legal remedies.