CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 avril 2024

.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 22 April 2024   SECOND SECTION Application no. 30206/23 M.L. against North Macedonia lodged on 21 July 2023 communicated on 2 April 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns a precautionary measure prohibiting the applicant from approaching and contacting his minor daughter D. In criminal proceedings initiated by D.’s mother against the applicant for threats against her and for bodily injuries and violence allegedly inflicted on D., on 6 and 15 March 2023 respectively, the pre-trial judge imposed and the three-judge panel confirmed the precautionary measure. The courts did not explicitly address the applicant’s arguments, including that in the period in which he had allegedly been violent towards D., he had almost not seen her at all, and that an expert report submitted by him had disproved the alleged threats against D.’s mother. Under the relevant domestic law, the precautionary measure was to be reassessed every two months. The applicant’s requests of July 2023 that it be lifted and of August 2023 that he be allowed to inspect the case file in the criminal proceedings (in order to speed up the lifting of the measure) apparently remained unanswered. In May and September 2023 the public prosecutors at two levels rejected the criminal complaints against the applicant. On 2 October 2023 a pre-trial judge, following a proposal by the prosecutor, lifted the precautionary measure. Invoking Article 6 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the pre-trial judge did not sufficiently investigate the facts and did not give weight to the applicant’s arguments when imposing the measure, and that the three ‑ judge panel did not provide sufficient reasoning when confirming it. He further complains that the measure was not reassessed two months after it had been imposed, that his requests of July and August 2023 remained unanswered and that the measure caused irreparable damage to his relationship with D. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the precautionary measure imposed on the applicant violate his right to respect for his family life, guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention? In particular, did the domestic court adduce relevant and sufficient reasons for their decision and assess the situation with sufficient thoroughness (see, for example, Petrov and X v. Russia , no. 23608/16, §§ 98-112, 23   October 2018; and Zelikha Magomadova v. Russia , no. 58724/14, §§   98 ‑ 117, 8   October 2019)?   2.     Was the prolonged validity of the precautionary measure provided by law, did it have a legitimate aim (see, for example, Moustahi v. France , no.   9347/14, §§ 113-4, 25 June 2020), and was it necessary in a democratic society, in terms of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention?