CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 1 décembre 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 22 December 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 57830/21 Mitko SMILKOV against North Macedonia lodged on 19 November 2021 communicated on 1 December 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s detention on remand in the context of criminal proceedings against him for smuggling of migrants. On 15 October   2019 the applicant was placed in detention on remand in connection with an ongoing criminal investigation against him and others. The applicant’s detention was extended on nineteen occasions with decisions adopted between 11   November   2019 and 14   May   2021. The Skopje Court of Appeal required between eleven and sixty-four days to examine the applicant’s appeals against fourteen extension orders. The applicant’s detention orders were based on the risk of absconding and reoffending. In assessing these risks, the domestic courts took into account the nature and gravity of the offence and the gravity of the potential penalty. They also noted that the applicant was unemployed, which was considered a factor increasing the likelihood of absconding. On 14   May   2021, following his conviction and sentencing to ten years’ imprisonment, he was placed in post-conviction detention. The applicant complains under Article 5   §   3 of the Convention that the courts did not provide sufficient reasons for his continued detention and under Article   5   §   4 of the Convention about the speediness of the Skopje Court of Appeal in the proceedings for reviewing the orders for his detention.       QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the deprivation of the applicant’s liberty from 15   October 2019 onwards compatible with Article 5   §   3 of the Convention? In particular, did the courts provide relevant and sufficient grounds for ordering and extending his detention during the entire period in question (see Merabishvili v.   Georgia [GC], no.   72508/13, §§   222-25, 28   November   2017, and Miladinov and   Others v.   the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , nos.   46398/09, 50570/09 and 50576/09, §§   45-49, 24   April   2014)?   2.     Were the review proceedings before the Skopje Court of Appeal regarding the orders of 10   December   2019, 23   April, 26   May, 25   June, 24   July, 24   August, 23   September, 20   October, 20   November and 22   December 2020, 21   January, 19   February, 22   March and 14   May   2021 for extension of the applicant’s detention compatible with the “speedy” requirement within the meaning of Article   5   §   4 of the Convention (see Janakieski v. North Macedonia , nos.   57325/19 and 16291/20, §   88, 14   November 2023; Snyatovskiy v. Russia , no.   10341/07, §   65, 13   December 2016)?