CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 décembre 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 3 January 2022   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 23346/18 Boban ILIKJ against North Macedonia lodged on 14 May 2018 communicated on 6 December 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE On 6 April 2018, a day after the applicant’s conviction, the trial court, upon the public prosecution’s proposal, ordered detention against the applicant due to the risk of absconding, and repealed the previous preventive measures that had been in place as of 16 March 2018. On 20 April 2018 the Court of Appeal, allegedly without communicating to the applicant the prosecutor’s submissions in this regard, dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the detention order and endorsed the trial court’s reasoning. The applicant complains that the prosecution’s submissions made in the appeal’s proceedings were not communicated to him. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was Article 5 § 4 applicable to the proceedings regarding the detention order of 6 April 2018 and the subsequent appeal (see Stollenwerk v.   Germany , no. 8844/12, §§ 36-37, 7 September 2017)? 2.     If so, were those proceedings compatible with Article 5 § 4 of the Convention? In particular, was the procedure before the Court of Appeal adversarial, in conformity with Article 5 § 4 of the Convention? Did the Court of Appeal communicate to the applicant the public prosecutor’s submissions relating to the applicant’s subsequent appeal?