Communicated on 23 November 2015

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 55634/14 Lence RUNTEVA against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia lodged on 31 July 2014

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Ms Len č e Runteva , is a Macedonian national, who was born in 1962 and lives in Å tip . She is represented before the Court by Mr T. Torov , a lawyer practising in Å tip .

A. The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

By a judgment of 23 April 2001, confirmed on appeal on 10 October 2001, the Ko č ani Court of First Instance (“the trial court”) convicted the applicant of a serious traffic offence and sentenced her to four years and six months ’ imprisonment. The period during which the applicant had been remanded in pre-trial detention (from 2 to 13 October 1999) was to be deducted from the custodial sentence.

On 20 January 2003 the applicant started serving the sentence.

On 28 July 2004 she obtained a presidential pardon, on the basis of which she was exempted from serving one year and six months of the prison term.

On 17 February 2005 the trial court accepted a recommendation by the director of the detention facility and ordered that the applicant be released on parole on 25 February 2005. As the presidential pardon reduced the prison sentence to three years, the court specified that the period of conditional release ( условен отпуст ) would come to an end on 9 January 2006.

In the meantime, on 1 February 2005 the Supreme Court accepted a request by the applicant for extraordinary mitigation of the prison sentence. It found that the applicant remained the sole person who would care for her father whose health had deteriorated after her mother had, in the meantime, died. According to the court, those were new circumstances on which the lower courts could not have relied in determining the sentence. It overturned the lower courts ’ judgments of 23 April and 10 October 2001 in respect of the sentence and reduced the prison term to three years and six months. The court reiterated that the period of time the applicant had spent in detention on remand was to be deducted from the total term of imprisonment. This judgment was served on the applicant on 10 March 2005.

On an unspecified date in 2007, the applicant brought a civil action against the respondent State, claiming compensation for being allegedly unlawfully detained for 60 days. She also claimed compensation in respect of the period of her conditional release (between 25 February 2005 and 9 January 2006), during which she had been regarded as an offender. She argued that, on the basis of the Supreme Court ’ s judgment for mitigation of sentence and the presidential pardon, the prison sentence had been reduced to two years excluding the time of her detention on remand. Accordingly, she should have been unconditionally released some 60 days prior to the date of her release on parole.

By a judgment of 25 June 2010, the Skopje Court of First Instance dismissed the applicant ’ s compensation claim as ill-founded. The court stated, inter alia , the following:

“... On the basis of the [information] submitted by [the trial court], the court establishes that the prison sentence imposed on [the applicant] was three years and six months, taking into account the presidential pardon. That aside, the total term of imprisonment, including [the applicant ’ s] conditional release that came to an end on 9 January 2006, was three years ... It is undisputed that [the applicant] was released from custody on 25 February 2005, as stated in the decision for her release on parole. Accordingly, she was not detained for longer than prescribed ... When [the trial court] decided about [the applicant ’ s] conditional release, it took into consideration the presidential pardon, which is evident from the reasoning provided; however, when reducing the sentence, it gave no weight to it. [The applicant] did not spend a day longer in custody than she was sentenced to. She was supposed to serve the sentence until 9 January 2006, the date when her period of conditional release came to an end. Until this date she was regarded as an offender ... Provisions concerning compensation of damages do not apply in the circumstances of the (present) case because the conviction was not wrongful. [The applicant ’ s] conviction had a valid legal basis ... The reduction of the prison term following the presidential pardon and the [the Supreme Court ’ s judgment] was based on grounds not related to [the applicant ’ s] guilt for the crime that she had committed. Only a person who has suffered damage due to a wrongful conviction is entitled to seek compensation for damage sustained. In the present case, [the applicant] was rightfully convicted ...”

The applicant challenged this judgment before the Skopje Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. She reiterated that, given the extraordinary reduction in the prison term ordered by the Supreme Court and the presidential pardon, she should have been incarcerated for only two years, further reduced by the period of her detention on remand. Any detention beyond this period had been unlawful. Accordingly, she was entitled to compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage under section 582(1)3 of the Criminal Proceedings Act.

By judgment of 9 February 2012 the Skopje Court of Appeal endorsed the established facts and the reasoning provided by the lower court. It further stated that:

“... the reduction of a prison term on the basis of an extraordinary mitigation of sentence (by the Supreme Court) does not constitute grounds for compensation for damage sustained if a person has remained imprisoned for longer than the reduced prison term imposed by a competent court.

Having regard to the above provision (section 582) of the Criminal Proceedings Act, this court considers that in the present case, the lower court having correctly established that [the applicant] had not been imprisoned a single day more than had been prescribed by the above judgments, the applicant has no right to claim compensation under section 582 (1)2 of the Criminal Proceedings Act ...”

On 17 October 2013 the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal on points of law by the applicant and upheld the lower courts ’ judgments. The applicant was served with this judgment on 31 January 2014.

B. Relevant domestic law

Section 582(1) 2) and 3) of the Criminal Proceedings Act, as applicable at the relevant time, provided that a person was entitled to claim compensation if he or she has served a prison sentence, but been awarded ‒ on the basis of a reopening of proceedings, a legality review request or a request for extraordinary review of a final judgment ‒ a shorter prison term than the one already served ; if due to an error or unlawful action by a (State) body he or she was deprived of his or her liberty unjustifiably or unlawfully or was detained on remand or served a longer (prison) sentence.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that she was imprisoned forty-seven days longer than the reduced prison term imposed by the Supreme Court, further commuted following the presidential pardon. For the same reasons, she was unlawfully regarded as an offender during her release on parole.

Relying on Article 5 § 5, she complains about the court judgments whereby her compensation claim for the alleged unlawful imprisonment was dismissed.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. In view of the applicant ’ s allegations, can the presidential pardon of 28 July 2004 be regarded applicable to the prison sentence mitigated by the Supreme Court ’ s judgment dated 1 February 2005? If so, w as the applicant deprived of her liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1(a) of the Convention?

2. Did the applicant have an enforceable right to compensation for her alleged unlawful detention in contravention of Article 5 § 1, as required by Article 5 § 5 of the Convention?