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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 22 December 2025   SECOND SECTION Applications nos. 46011/22 and 46080/22 Miroslav MITROVSKI against North Macedonia and Igor GIEVSKI against North Macedonia lodged on 16 September 2022 communicated on 1 December 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns the remand measures ordered against the applicants in the context of criminal proceedings against them for charges of fraud in the exercise of official functions as managers of the leading electricity company in the respondent State. On 26 May 2022 the applicants were each summoned by the financial police to give a statement, following which they were detained and brought before a pre-trial judge the next morning. On 27 May 2022 the prosecutor opened an official investigation against the applicants and other accused and requested that the court order their detention on remand. On the same day, the pre-trial judge ordered both applicants to be held in detention on remand until 24 June 2022 when they were placed under house arrest with restriction on their communication. Both the detention and house arrest orders were based on a concrete risk that the applicants might interfere with the investigation. On 25 July 2022 the trial court extended the applicants’ house arrest. The applicants’ appealed the trial court’s decision on the same day when it was adopted, and the higher public prosecutor lodged a written proposal regarding the applicants’ appeal, which was allegedly not served on them. The applicants’ appeals were dismissed by the Skopje Court of Appeal fifteen days after they were lodged, on 9 August 2022. On 23 August 2022 the applicants were released from house arrest and placed under preventive measures, including judicial supervision, restrictions on travel outside their city, confiscation of their passports, prohibition on attending their workplace, and a restriction on contacting persons relevant to the investigation. On 25 August 2023 the prosecutor discontinued the investigation for lack of criminal conduct. The applicants complain under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention about the lack of adversarial proceedings and the speediness in the proceedings for the review of their depravation of liberty. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Were the review proceedings before the Skopje Court of Appeal regarding the order of 25 July 2022 for the extension of the applicants’ house arrest 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)?   2.     Was the procedure regarding the deprivation of the applicants’ liberty in conformity with Article 5 § 4 of the Convention? In particular, were the higher prosecutor’s written submissions regarding the applicants’ appeals against the decisions for the extension of their house arrest of 25 July 2022 communicated to the applicants (see, mutatis mutandis , Miladinov and   Others v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , nos. 46398/09 and 2 others, §§ 63-64 and 67, 24 April 2014)?