CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 9 décembre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .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 } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s4E036C5F { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sB6A7F5BF { width:17.54pt; display:inline-block } .s36359848 { width:112.09pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block }   SECOND SECTION CASE OF SPASOVSKA v. NORTH MACEDONIA (Application no. 28792/21)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 9 December 2025   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Spasovska v. North Macedonia, The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir , President ,   Jovan Ilievski,   Stéphane Pisani , judges , and Dorothee von Arnim, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   28792/21) 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 28   May 2021 by a Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia, Ms   Nadica Spasovska (“the applicant”), who was born in 1954, lives in Skopje and was represented by Mr D. Gjorchevski, a lawyer practising in Skopje; the decision to give notice of the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1 to the Convention to the Government of North Macedonia (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Ms D.   Djonova, and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 18 November 2025, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE 1.     The application concerns the applicant’s complaint that the obligation to pay a private heat supplier a standing charge introduced by the State had violated her right to the peaceful enjoyment of her possession (a flat) under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. 2 .     The applicant is the owner of a flat in a residential building in Skopje that is connected to a district heating network, operated by a private heat supplier. On an unspecified date prior to 30 July 2012, being the date when the Heat Energy Supply Regulations (“the 2012 Regulations”) were adopted by the Energy Regulatory Commission, her flat was disconnected from the heating network. Under section 53(2) of the 2012 Regulations, disconnected users were required to pay an annual standing charge to private heat suppliers, payable in monthly instalments. By decision U.br.125/2012 adopted on 22   May 2013, the Constitutional Court declared that provision compatible with the Constitution (the 2012 Regulations and the Constitutional Court’s decision were summarised in Strezovski and Others v.   North Macedonia , nos.   14460/16 and 7 others, §§   12-13 and 17-19, 27   February 2020). 3 .     Following the introduction of the above-mentioned obligation on 1   October 2012 (section 66 of the 2012 Regulations), the private heat supplier issued invoices requiring the applicant to pay the standing charge. When the applicant failed to pay, a notary public granted a request by the supplier for enforcement of the unpaid invoices, and issued a payment order regarding the unpaid monthly instalments of the standing charge. 4.     The present application concerns payment orders for monthly instalments in the amount of 10   euros for the period from August 2017 to December 2017. 5 .     The applicant challenged the above-mentioned payment orders before the Skopje Court of First Instance, arguing, among other things, that: (i) she had not entered into an agreement with the supplier; (ii) the charge had been introduced by the 2012 Regulations, notwithstanding the fact that such an obligation could only be introduced by primary legislation; (iii) the Energy Act did not include the terms “disconnected users” and “indirect consumers” introduced by the 2012 Regulations; (iv) her flat had been disconnected from the district heating system before the 2012 Regulations had entered into force; and (v) her flat received no heat from the district network. 6.     By a decision given on 27 March 2019, the Skopje Court of First   Instance dismissed the applicant’s objections and upheld the payment order. The court held that the applicant was an “indirect consumer” of heat distributed in the building through the district heating network and was accordingly obliged to pay the standing charge as specified in sections 53(2) and 66 of the 2012 Regulations. The decision was confirmed by the Court of Appeal on 17 December 2020. The Court of Appeal’s decision was final. 7.     The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that her right to the peaceful enjoyment of her flat had been violated by the obligation to pay the standing heating charge. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 of protocol No. 1 to THE CONVENTION 8.     The Court notes that the applicant’s complaint is not manifestly ill ‑ founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. 9.     The relevant general principles concerning the applicant’s rights under Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in cases concerning litigation between individuals and private companies have been summarised in Strezovski and Others v. North Macedonia (nos.   14460/16 and 7 others, §§   61-62, 27   February 2020, with further references). 10.     In the present case, the imposition of the standing heating charge on the applicant, as the owner of a flat disconnected from the district heating system, either amounted to an interference with her right to the peaceful enjoyment of her flat, or its compatibility with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 is to be assessed under the State’s positive obligations under that provision ( Strezovski and Others , cited above, §§ 64-65). It is not disputed that the impugned measure was provided for by law (see paragraphs 2-3 above and Strezovski and Others , cited above, §§ 68-69) and it pursued the legitimate aim of ensuring a safe, secure and efficient heat supply (ibid., §§   70-75). 11.     As to whether a fair balance was struck between the competing interests of the individual and the community as a whole, however, in the proceedings in question the domestic courts did not objectively assess all the relevant factors of the case, including the applicant’s arguments (see   paragraph 5 above). They applied the same blanket approach which the Court has found to be at odds with the respondent State’s obligation to ensure adequate protection of the applicant’s property rights, and to be tantamount to a failure to strike the requisite fair balance between the interests involved (see Strezovski and Others , cited above, §§ 76-89). 12.     The Court observes that in the present case the Government conceded in their observations that there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol   No. 1. 13.     In the light of the foregoing, the Court concludes that there has been a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 14.     The applicant did not submit a claim for just satisfaction within the time-limit set by the Court. Accordingly, the Court considers that there is no call to award her any sum on that account. 15.     Nevertheless, the Court considers it appropriate to reiterate that domestic law provides for the possibility that a successful applicant in proceedings before the Court can request the reopening of the domestic proceedings ( Strezovski and Others , cited above, § 95). FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Declares the application admissible; Holds that there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. Done in English, and notified in writing on 9 December 2025, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.   Dorothee von Arnim   Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir   Deputy Registrar   President