CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 octobre 2023

.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 23 October 2023   SECOND SECTION Application no. 50897/21 Abdurahman ASAN against North Macedonia lodged on 8 October 2021 communicated on 4 October 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE On request by the public prosecutor, on 16 June 2021 the investigating judge, in a decision which was subsequently upheld by the trial court’s panel, ordered that the applicant be placed in detention on remand for thirty days on account of a reasonable suspicion of unauthorised production and release for trade of narcotics, psychotropic substances and precursors. According to the case-file, he possessed a plot of land that he had leased for the last four years to a third person (the second accused) on which, inter alia , cannabis plants were found. The judge based the detention order on the risk of the applicant absconding and interfering with the investigation, relying on the gravity of the charges and the severity of the potential sentence. On 17 July and 10 August 2021 the applicant’s detention on remand was extended by the trial court’s panel in decisions based on the same reasons, subsequently upheld by the Bitola Court of Appeal. According to the applicant, neither the request for the initial detention nor the requests for extension thereof were communicated to him. His requests for an oral hearing in the proceedings for review of the initial detention before the panel and in the review proceedings following the orders for extension were to no avail. On 10 September 2021 the applicant was released on bail. The applicant complains under Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention that his detention had been ordered in abstracto and without sufficient grounds; that the domestic courts did not give concrete and sufficient reasons for his detention; that the review proceedings were not adversarial; and that there was no oral hearing. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant’s detention on remand compatible with the requirements of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, can the applicant be considered to have been detained on the basis of “a reasonable suspicion” that he had committed an offence for the purposes of Article   5   §   1   (c) (see Merabishvili v. Georgia [GC], no. 72508/13, §§ 181-86, 28 November 2017)?   2.     Were the grounds given by the courts concerning the order for, and extension of the applicant’s detention on remand “relevant and sufficient” as required under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see   Ramkovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no. 33566/11, §§ 50-63, 8 February 2018)?   3.     Was the procedure before the courts in conformity with Article 5 § 4 of the Convention? In particular, were the public prosecutor’s written observations requesting detention on remand and subsequent extensions thereof submitted to the applicant or his legal representative (see Miladinov and Others v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , nos. 46398/09 and 2 others, §§ 63-68, 24 April 2014)?   4.     Were the panels required to hold an oral hearing following his appeal, after the initial detention order by the investigating judge, and when extending the applicant’s detention on remand ( ibid .)?