Atanasovski v. North Macedonia

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 30078/21 Vladimir ATANASOVSKI against North Macedonia

(see appended table)

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 18 June 2026 as a Committee composed of:

Stéphane Pisani , President , Juha Lavapuro, Hugh Mercer , judges ,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application against the Republic of North Macedonia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 2 June 2021,

Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

The applicant’s details are set out in the appended table.

The applicant was represented by Mr J. Apostolski, a lawyer practising in Skopje.

The application concerns the applicant’s pre-trial detention in prison and his house arrest, in the context of criminal proceedings against him for terrorist threat to the constitutional order and security.

The applicant’s complaints that his detention and house arrest were unduly prolonged, that the domestic courts failed to provide relevant and sufficient reasons for them, and that the detention and house arrest orders relied on stereotyped formulae, were communicated to the Government of North Macedonia (“the Government”) under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.

After unsuccessful friendly-settlement negotiations, the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by these complaints.

In the declaration submitted to the Court, the Government acknowledged that there had been a violation of the applicant’s rights guaranteed by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. They offered to pay the applicant the amount detailed in the appended table and invited the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. The amount would be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision.

By a letter of 15 April 2026, the applicant indicated that he was not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration. In particular, he argued that the amount proposed by the Government was insufficient and did not correspond to the standards established in the Court’s case-law and that the domestic courts excessively resorted to detention in criminal proceedings, without appropriate justification.

The Court observes that Article 37 § 1 (c) enables it to strike a case out of its list if:

“... for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.

Thus, it may strike out applications under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued (see, in particular, the Tahsin Acar v. Turkey judgment (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75 ‑ 77, ECHR 2003-VI).

The Court has established clear and extensive case-law concerning complaints relating to the lack of sufficient reasons for applicant’s prolonged detention (see Merabishvili v. Georgia [GC], no. 72508/13, §§ 222-25, 28 November 2017; Vasilkoski and Others v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no. 28169/08, §§ 55-64, 28 October 2010; Miladinov and Others v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , nos. 46398/09 and 2 others, §§ 45-58, 24 April 2014; and Janakieski v. North Macedonia , nos. 57325/19 and 16291/20, §§ 75-84, 14 November 2023).

Noting the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c)).

In the light of the above considerations, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine ).

The Court considers that in the event of failure to pay the amount indicated in the declaration within the above-mentioned three-month period, simple interest shall be payable, from the expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank plus three percentage points (compare with Magdelinikj v. North Macedonia (dec.) [Committee], no. 13208/20 and 4 other applications, § 16, 26 March 2024; Zogović v. Montenegro (dec.) [Committee], no. 60117/10, 6 February 2018; Aslan v. Turkey (dec.) [Committee], no. 19882/10, § 22, 28 February 2017; and Nikolovska v. North Macedonia (dec.) [Committee], no. 4137/21, 26 March 2026).

Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application may be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention (see Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).

In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.

Done in English and notified in writing on 9 July 2026.

Viktoriya Maradudina Stéphane Pisani Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

Application raising complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention

(Relevant and sufficient reasons for detention)

Application no. Date of introduction

Applicant’s name

Year of birth

Date of receipt of Government’s declaration

Date of receipt of applicant’s comments

Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses

(in euros) [1]

30078/21

02/06/2021

Vladimir ATANASOVSKI

1984

13/04/2026

15/04/2026

3,465

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.