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 } .s25D4CC02 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } Published on 1 December 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 30504/23 Gordana JANKULOSKA against North Macedonia lodged on 22 July 2023 communicated on 10 November 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged unfairness of the criminal proceedings against the applicant, a former Minister in the Government of the respondent State, for electoral offences. 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 investigation stage of the proceedings, in April 2016 the President of the State adopted decisions on pardon ( помилување ) and rulings exempting several persons, including the applicant, from prosecution ( ослободува од гонење ) regarding the offences that they were 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 The President relied on section 11 of the 1993 Pardon Act, which had been repealed in 2009 by way of amendments; the latter amendments were struck down by the Constitutional Court in March 2016.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”). In the criminal proceedings the applicant pleaded guilty, but argued that she should not have been prosecuted in view of the pardon decision. The domestic courts at two levels of jurisdiction convicted her, without addressing her arguments concerning the pardon decision. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that she was prosecuted, tried and convicted despite the pardon decision, contrary to the principles of rule of law and legal certainty, and that the domestic courts “refused to take a stance” on the applicant’s arguments in that regard. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Were the applicant’s prosecution, trial and conviction for electoral offences 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 on this ground (see, mutatis mutandis ,   Radchikov v. Russia , no.   65582/01 , § 42, 24 May 2007;   and Xheraj v. Albania , no.   37959/02 , §§   51 and 52, 29 July 2008)?   (a) 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?   (b) 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.     Did the domestic courts provide sufficient reasoning, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, in respect of the applicant’s arguments concerning the pardon decision (see, for the general principles, Moreira   Ferreira v.   Portugal (no. 2) [GC], no. 19867/12, § 84, 11 July 2017)?