CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 25 août 2015

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .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 } .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 } Communicated on 25 August 2015   FIRST SECTION Application no. 30721/15 Dušan PETROVIĆ against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia lodged on 18 June 2015 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Dušan Petrović, is a Serbian and Macedonian national, who was born in 1926 and lives in Belgrade. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 1.     Restitution proceedings On 11 December 2002 the applicant claimed restitution of a hotel in the respondent State. On 8 July 2004 the Restitution Commission dismissed the request. On 27 July 2004 the applicant appealed. After five remittal orders, on 6   September 2013 the Higher Administrative Court quashed a judgment of the Administrative Court and instructed it to hold a hearing and decide the applicant’s claim on the merits. The proceedings are pending before the Administrative Court. 2.     Length proceedings before the Supreme Court On 3 July 2014 the applicant lodged a length remedy before the Supreme Court, asking it to order the Administrative Court to decide the administrative-dispute claim within a three-month time-limit and to award him just satisfaction. No decision has yet been given upon the length remedy. COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention about the length of the restitution proceedings. He also challenges the effectiveness of the length remedy before the Supreme Court. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the length of the restitution proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? 2. In the particular circumstances of the present case, did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 6 § 1 as required by Article 13 of the Convention?