SECOND SECTION
CASE OF M.L. v. NORTH MACEDONIA
(Application no. 30206/23)
 
JUDGMENT
 
Art 8 • Family life • Barring order prohibiting the applicant from approaching his nine-year-old daughter in the context of criminal proceedings against him concerning alleged violence and threats against his daughter and former wife • Pre‑trial judge’s order issued as a precautionary measure not unreasonable • Insufficient reasoning and lack of autonomous and comprehensive risk assessment by three-judge panel confirming the order on appeal • Absence of reasoned decisions by pre-trial judge in respect of mandatory periodic reassessment of order • Lack of meaningful scrutiny on the basis of updated information • Failure to involve applicant in reassessment • No procedural guarantees in periodic reassessment capable of enabling applicant to protect his interest in being reunited with his daughter
 
Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court

 
STRASBOURG
24 June 2025
 
FINAL
 
24/09/2025
 
 
This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of M.L. v. North Macedonia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
 Arnfinn Bårdsen, President,
 Saadet Yüksel,
 Tim Eicke,
 Jovan Ilievski,
 Gediminas Sagatys,
 Stéphane Pisani,
 Juha Lavapuro, judges,
and Dorothee von Arnim, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 30206/23) 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”) by a Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia, Mr M.L. (“the applicant”), on 21 July 2023;
the decision to give notice to the Government of North Macedonia (“the Government”) of the complaints concerning the issuing and the prolonged validity of a barring order prohibiting the applicant from approaching his daughter, and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible;
the decision not to disclose the applicant’s name;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 3 June 2025,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
INTRODUCTION
1. The case concerns a barring order prohibiting the applicant from approaching his daughter within 100 metres and from visiting her home and school and the alleged failure of the domestic court to reassess the need for that order every two months, as required by domestic law. It raises an issue under Article 8 of the Convention. THE FACTS
2. The applicant was born in 1984 and lives in Skopje. He was represented by Mr L. Janev, a lawyer practising in Skopje. 3. The Government were represented by their Agent, Ms D. Djonova. 4. The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. Background to the case and proceedings for custody and contact rights
5. In July 2013 the applicant married D.B.L. (“the mother”). In December 2013 their daughter D. was born. In December 2021 the applicant filed for divorce and requested custody of D. 6. On 10 March 2022 the Social Care Centre (“the Centre”) issued an opinion recommending that the applicant be granted custody of D. 7. In June 2022 the applicant moved out of the family apartment. It appears that from June to October 2022 D. stayed with the applicant every other week. 8. On 25 October 2022 the applicant notified the Centre that the mother had initiated criminal proceedings against him (see paragraph 17 below) and that he had not seen D. since 2 October 2022. He requested that he be granted custody of D. 9. On 23 January 2023 the Centre delivered a decision establishing the applicant’s contact rights in respect of D., who, in accordance with that decision, was to spend, inter alia, every other weekend and every Wednesday with the applicant. 10. By submissions of 30 January, 2, 23 and 27 February and 2 March 2023, the applicant complained to the Centre that the mother had not complied with the decision setting out the contact rights and that he had almost not seen D. at all since October 2022, except for two brief encounters during which D. had been visibly upset. He submitted that D. had refused to see him as a result of the mother’s and her family’s influence over her. He requested that D. be entrusted to him, that the Centre organise a meeting between him and D. on its premises and that it instruct the mother not to hinder his contact with D. 11. On 19 April 2023 the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy dismissed the applicant’s appeal lodged against the contact-rights decision of 23 January 2023 (see paragraph 9 above). 12. On 8 May 2023, in view of the measures ordered against the applicant in concurrent criminal proceedings (see paragraphs 17-35 below), the Centre set aside its decision of 23 January 2023. On 11 September 2023 it issued a fresh opinion for the purposes of the divorce and custody proceedings, recommending that the mother be granted custody of D. It referred to several factors, among which were the measures ordered against the applicant in the criminal proceedings and the “longer period of separation” between the applicant and D. 13. On 4 December 2023 the Centre regulated anew the applicant’s contact rights in respect of D. In accordance with that decision, the applicant was to see D. for one hour twice per month on the Centre’s premises. 14. By a judgment of 11 March 2024, which became final on 5 June 2024, the Skopje Civil Court of First Instance (“the Civil Court”) dissolved the marriage between the applicant and the mother, granted custody of D. to the mother and determined the applicant’s contact rights in respect of D.
protective measures ordered in civil proceedings
15. While the proceedings described above were pending, on 23 November 2022 the Civil Court upheld a request submitted by the Centre and ordered protective measures under the Law on Prevention of and Protection from Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence against both the applicant and the mother. The court prohibited them from arguing in D.’s presence and threatening each other with domestic violence and from involving D. in their misunderstandings. It also specifically prohibited the applicant from committing any acts of domestic violence against the mother in D.’s presence. Additionally, the court ordered both the applicant and the mother to attend counselling sessions for perpetrators of domestic violence. 16. The Skopje Court of Appeal remitted the case and on 9 June 2023 the Civil Court again ordered those measures, which were upheld by the Court of Appeal on 10 July 2023. Criminal proceedings against the applicant and the mother and the baRRing order against the applicant
17. While the divorce and custody proceedings were pending, on 20 October 2022 the mother reported to the police that the applicant had allegedly sent her threatening messages via an instant messaging application. Having interviewed the applicant, on 28 December 2022 the police filed a criminal complaint against the applicant with the public prosecutor for threatening D.’s mother (загрозување на сигурноста). 18. In the meantime, in December 2022 the applicant brought criminal complaints against the mother, submitting that she had threatened him and had falsely accused him of threatening her. The Court was not informed about the outcome of those proceedings. 19. On 1 March 2023 the mother reported to the police that between October 2022 and March 2023 the applicant had physically and psychologically abused D. while she had been staying with him. The mother submitted that the applicant had insulted, threatened and shouted at D. and had from time to time hit her on the head and kicked her on the legs. 20. On the same day, two police officers interviewed D., who stated that she had not seen the applicant since October 2022 because she had not wanted to and that when she had spent time with him after he had moved out of their apartment, he had hit her in the face and body and had threatened and insulted her. She further stated that she did not wish to see the applicant or spend any time with him. 21. On 2 and 3 March 2023 two other police officers interviewed D.’s schoolteacher, the school’s psychologist and pedagogical expert, and D.’s maternal grandmother. The teacher stated that since 15 February 2023 D. had become absent-minded and had been in a bad mood. She described an event in which the applicant had been expected to pick D. up from school, but she had cried and had refused to leave with him. The grandmother stated, among other things, that the applicant had repeatedly physically and psychologically abused D. 22. On 6 March 2023 the police temporarily detained and interviewed the applicant, who denied the accusations and stated that he had not seen D. since 2 October 2022. The police then filed a criminal complaint with the public prosecutor against the applicant for bodily injury inflicted through domestic violence and for violence against a child. The criminal complaint was accompanied by, inter alia, copies of the statements of D. and the witnesses (see paragraphs 20 and 21 above), the other criminal complaints for threats which the applicant and the mother had lodged against each other (see paragraphs 17 and 18 above), and the Civil Court’s decision of 23 November 2022 ordering protective measures against both the applicant and the mother (see paragraph 15 above). Copies of psychiatric medical reports and notes dated 6 and 15 February and 2 March 2023 were also attached. The report of 6 February 2023, issued by a psychiatrist from a private practice, noted, inter alia, that D. had stated that the father had been hitting her, insulting her and shouting at her and concluded that D. had been upset and anxious and that she had expressed fear of separation from her mother. The remaining medical notes, issued by psychiatrists from public institutions, referred to statements from D. to the effect that she had not wanted to see the applicant, found that D. had been angry, upset and afraid and recommended that D. talk to a psychologist. 23. On the same day, the public prosecutor requested that a pre-trial judge order protective measures (мерки на претпазливост) in respect of the applicant, pursuant to section 146(1)(5) and (6) and section 146(5) of the Criminal Proceedings Act (see paragraph 37 below) and in respect of the two criminal complaints against the applicant for threatening the mother and causing bodily injuries and for using violence against D. (see paragraphs 17 and 22 above). Copies of the evidence cited in paragraph 22 above were enclosed with the request, as were screenshots of the threatening messages allegedly sent to the mother by the applicant. The applicant was brought before a pre-trial judge of the Skopje Criminal Court of First Instance (“the Criminal Court”), where he stated that he had not seen his daughter for five months. He did not submit any documentary evidence. 24. Still on the same day (6 March 2023) the pre-trial judge accepted the prosecutor’s request for protective measures. Pursuant to section 146(1)(5) and (6) of the Criminal Proceedings Act (see paragraph 37 below), he issued an order barring the applicant from approaching D. and the mother within 100 metres and from visiting D.’s school or the apartment where she and the mother lived (“the barring order”). Those measures would be applied for as long as needed, but at the latest until a final judgment was delivered in the criminal proceedings. The court would reassess the need for the measures every two months. The barring order stated the reasons for the decision as follows:
“... the type and severity of the sentence prescribed, the real possibility that it be imposed, the manner in which [the applicant] committed the offences [and] their consequences are circumstances which justifiably indicate that [the applicant] might influence the victims during the proceedings[.] ... [T]he court has assessed the personal, family and material situation of [the applicant], [that is] that he is a relatively young person [and] employed, [but it] has decided that these circumstances cannot sufficiently justify the expectation that he will not influence the victims ...
... bearing in mind the seriousness of the offences with which [the applicant] is charged, the sentence prescribed and, in particular, the psychological and physical health of the minor child [D.], in order to facilitate the unhindered conduct of the criminal proceedings, [the court finds that] there is a need to undertake measures with the purpose of avoiding any possible influence over the victims ...”
25. On 7 March 2023 the applicant received a copy of the barring order. On 9 March 2023 he appealed against it, arguing that he could not have possibly been violent towards D. between October 2022 and March 2023, as he had almost not seen her at all since 2 October 2022. In support he submitted, inter alia, a copy of his submission to the Centre dated 25 October 2022 (see paragraph 8 above), copies of the decision on contact rights dated 23 January 2023 and his complaints to the Centre lodged in January, February and March 2023 (see paragraph 10 above) in which he had complained of the non-enforcement of the decision on contact rights. In connection with the alleged threats against the mother, he stated that he had already initiated criminal proceedings against her for making false accusations and submitted an expert report which concluded that no messages had been sent to the mother from his telephone on the relevant day. The applicant further argued that the Centre had never found any irregularities in his conduct towards D. and that the barring order would distance D. from him. 26. On 15 March 2023 a three-judge panel of the Criminal Court dismissed his appeal and confirmed the barring order. The relevant part of the decision reads as follows:
“... the panel has assessed the decision of the pre-trial judge ... and found that it was justified and substantiated with sufficient facts and evidence. In the present case, there is a reasonable suspicion (основано сомнение) that [the applicant] committed the offences with which he was charged[. G]iven that the proceedings are at the investigation stage and that, currently, relevant investigation measures are being undertaken ...

Article of the Convention at issue: Article 8
Outcome: violation