Communicated on 18 September 2020 Published on 5 October 2020

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 26233/18 Kiro TODOROVSKI against North Macedonia and 2 other applications (see list appended)

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The applicants are former high-ranking Government officials suspected of having committed various criminal offences, such as criminal conspiracy and elections-related offences. Pending the investigation regarding those alleged crimes, the President of the State adopted (relying on section 11 of the 1993 Pardon Act ( Закон за помилување )) individual decisions on pardon (“pardon decisions”, помилување ) and rulings exempting each applicant separately from prosecution ( ослободува од гонење ) regarding those crimes. Based on a subsequently adopted statutory provision , the President of the State revoked ( поништува ) the pardon decisions and the related rulings (“revocation decisions”). The domestic courts then confirmed the bill of indictment ( обвинителен акт ) dismissing complaints by the applicants that the pardon decisions by the President of the State had been unconditional and that, accordingly, proceedings against them should be discontinued.

After a co-accused in the criminal case had left the country, two applicants (the applicants Janakieski and Bozhinovski ) who had previously been issued preventive measures, were ordered thirty day pre-trial detention due to a risk of absconding. The trial court ’ s panel relied on an operative note ( службена белешка) of the national intelligence service suggesting that the applicants had approached, through an intermediary, the President of the State to ask for a pardon, a request that the President rejected (in a press release published on the President ’ s website, the President denied the allegations mentioned in the operative note), and that they are holding foreign bank accounts. The panel considered these indications as decisive and noted that its finding had been reinforced by the absconding of the co-accused. Their appeals were dismissed by the Court of Appeal.

The criminal proceedings against all applicants are still pending.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

A. Questions regarding all applicants:

1. Were the pardon decisions by the President of the State dated 12 April 2016 irrevocable? Were the revocation decisions by the President of the State dated 27 May 2016 and 7 June 2016 based on a subsequent statutory provision (section 11-a of the 2016 P ardon Act, Official Gazette no. 99/2016) compatible with the principles of rule of law and legal certainty?

2. Was 2016 Pardon Act of an individualised nature that targeted specific persons? In addition and given the short-term nature of the President ’ s entitlement to revoke a pardon issued without regular proceedings, was 2016 Pardon Act compatible with the principles of rule of law and legal certainty?

3. In the light of the questions under 1) and 2) above, is the applicants ’ prosecution regarding the alleged crimes to which the pardon and revocation decisions by the President of the State relate permissible? If not,

B. Question regarding application no. 26233/18

Has there been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention with respect to the pending criminal proceedings against the applicants in relation to the alleged crimes to which the pardon and revocation decisions by the President of the State relate?

C. Question regarding applications nos. 59762/18 and 1005/19

Was the applicants ’ detention ordered in the context of the criminal proceedings subject to the pardon and revocation decisions by the President of the State “lawful” and “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law” within the meaning of Article 5 of the Convention (see Lexa v. Slovakia , no. 54334/00, § 142, 23 September 2008)? In addition, were the grounds given by the courts concerning the applicants ’ pre-trial detention “relevant and sufficient” as required under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention?

Was the procedure before the trial court ’ s panel adversarial in conformity with Article 5 § 4 of the Convention? In particular, was the panel required to hold an oral hearing when replacing the initial preventive measures with detention?

A PPENDIX

No.

Application no.

Case name

Lodged on

Applicant

Year of Birth

Nationality

Represented by

1

26233/18

Todorovski v. North Macedonia

30/05/2018

Kiro TODOROVSKI

1984Macedonian/ citizen of the Republic

of North Macedonia

Vlatko ILIEVSKI

2

59762/18

Janakieski v. North Macedonia

13/12/2018

Mile JANAKIESKI

1978Macedonian/ citizen of the Republic

of North Macedonia

3

1005/19

Bozhinovski v. North Macedonia

20/12/2018

Kiril BOZHINOVSKI

1980Macedonian/ citizen of the Republic

of North Macedonia of North Macedonia