Background
Dragi Rashkovski, a former Secretary General of the Government of North Macedonia, and Daniel Stanchev, a company manager, were investigated on suspicion of abuse connected with public procurement. Both were placed under house arrest in April 2021, briefly detained on remand, and then returned to house arrest. Domestic courts extended the measures based on asserted risks of absconding and interference with the investigation. Rashkovski was released on bail in February 2022; Stanchev was released subject to restrictions in August 2022.
During proceedings reviewing Rashkovski’s detention and house arrest, the Higher Public Prosecutor submitted written replies to three of his appeals, but those submissions were not served on him. The criminal court also temporarily froze bank accounts belonging to Rashkovski and his children, over which he had control, containing approximately EUR 82,000. The underlying criminal case was remitted for retrial in July 2024 and remained pending.
The Court’s Holding
The European Court of Human Rights unanimously held that North Macedonia violated Article 5 § 3 as to both applicants. For Rashkovski, the Court accepted that the initial deprivation of liberty through 8 October 2021 was supported by a reasonable suspicion that he might interfere with the investigation. After that date, however, the courts did not explain how his domestic and international acquaintances created a concrete, present risk of absconding. The reasons for his continued deprivation of liberty until 2 February 2022 were therefore insufficient.
For Stanchev, the domestic courts merely cited his lack of family or property and the possibility that he might influence witnesses or conceal evidence. Those grounds were abstract and stereotypical rather than individualized. The Court found the reasons insufficient throughout his deprivation of liberty from 16 April 2021 to 29 August 2022.
The Court also found an Article 5 § 4 violation because the prosecution’s submissions responding to three of Rashkovski’s appeals were not communicated to him, denying adversarial proceedings and equality of arms. It rejected as manifestly ill-founded the applicants’ complaint about the frequency of oral hearings and Rashkovski’s property complaint, finding the account freeze lawful, directed toward the general interest, and proportionate to the alleged financial damage. Rashkovski was awarded EUR 750 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 250 for costs.
Key Takeaways
- Continued pre-trial detention or house arrest must rest on individualized facts showing a concrete and current risk; abstract or stereotyped assertions are insufficient under Article 5 § 3.
- A detainee need not receive an oral hearing on every appeal, provided there is an opportunity to be heard at reasonable intervals.
- Detention-review proceedings must be adversarial: failing to provide the detainee with the prosecutor’s submissions can violate Article 5 § 4.
- A temporary asset freeze may comply with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 when it is lawful, serves the general interest, and is proportionate to the alleged loss it secures.
Why It Matters
The judgment reinforces that courts cannot justify lengthy pre-trial detention by repeatedly invoking generic risks of flight or interference. They must connect the applicant’s circumstances to an actual, continuing risk and explain why deprivation of liberty remains necessary.
It also underscores that procedural fairness applies to detention appeals: material submissions from prosecutors must be disclosed so the detained person can respond effectively.