CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 26 août 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s959B95E9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sAE52F009 { width:2.01pt; display:inline-block } .sAFA31468 { width:115.93pt; display:inline-block } .sAA8E4CBE { width:145.63pt; display:inline-block }   FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 20474/07 Senija HASANOSKA against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 26   August 2014 as a Committee composed of:   Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos, President,   Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,   Ksenija Turković, judges, and Søren C. Prebensen, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 16 April 2007, Having regard to the Government’s observations and the applicant’s submissions, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Ms Senija Hasanoska, is a Macedonian national, who was born in 1937 and lives in Prilep. The Macedonian Government (“the Government”) were initially represented by their former Agent, Mrs   R.   Lazareska Gerovska, and subsequently by their present Agent, Mr   K. Bogdanov. The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. A.     The circumstances of the case a)     Restitution proceedings On 3 December 2001 N.D. requested restitution of a land. After N.D’s death on 30 December 2001, the applicant continued the restitution proceedings as N.D.’s only heir. The case was pending before the administrative bodies and on 3   September 2008 it was for the first time brought before the Administrative Court. Since the proceedings started, the case was remitted on several occasions and, as stated by the applicant, it is now again pending before the Administrative Court. b)     Length remedy before the Supreme Court On 4 May 2009 the Supreme Court rejected ( отфрла ) the applicant’s length remedy finding it inapplicable to administrative proceedings in which no court decision had yet been rendered. B.     Relevant domestic law The provisions relevant to the present case were described in Adži Spirkoska and others v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (dec.), no. 38914/05, 3 November 2011. COMPLAINTS The applicant complained under Article 6 about the length of the restitution proceedings. She also invoked Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention. THE LAW The applicant complained under Article 6 and Article 1 of Protocol No.   1. These Articles, in so far as relevant, read as follows: Article 6 § 1 “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...” Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 “Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law. The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.” The complaint under Article 6 about the length of the restitution proceedings was communicated to the Government. A.     Complaint about the length of the restitution proceedings The Government submitted that Article 6 was inapplicable to the restitution proceedings before the administrative bodies. They further argued that the applicant should lodge a fresh length remedy before the Supreme Court. In her latest submission (letter received by the Court on 22   November   2013), the applicant informed that the proceedings are still pending, currently before the Administrative Court. The Court recalls that Article 6 applies to administrative proceedings such as the restitution proceedings in the current case (see Blage Ilievski v.   the   former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no. 39538/03, § 13, 25   June   2009). As regards the Government’s objection for non-exhaustion, the Court recalls that the length remedy before the Supreme Court is now effective and the applicants are required to exhaust it before they would bring their length complaints before the Court (see Adži Spirkoska and others v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (dec.), no. 38914/05, 3   November   2011). There is no reason that the Court hold otherwise in the present case. The impugned proceedings are still pending and the applicant can apply to the Supreme Court seeking that it considers whether they meet the “reasonable time” requirement under Article 6 of the Convention. That she already used this remedy in 2009 when it was not effective, does not release her from the requirement to exhaust this remedy again (see Jovevski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (dec.), no. 45482/08, 27   May   2014). It follows that the complaint about the length of the proceedings under Article 6 must be rejected under Article   35 §§   1 and   4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. B.     Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 complaint The Court notes that the restitution proceedings are still pending. It follows that the applicant’s complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 is therefore premature. It follows that this complaint must be rejected under Article   35 §§   1 and   4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Declares the application inadmissible.   Søren C. Prebensen   Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos Acting Deputy Registrar   President