CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 22 juin 2017

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sCAA154B1 { margin-left:33.01pt; padding-left:2.99pt; font-family:Arial } .s14C34524 { font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s7ACB8D74 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } Communicated on 22 June 2017     FIRST SECTION Applications nos 29071/15 and 35267/15 MAKEDONIJA TURIST against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia lodged on 10 June 2015 and 14 July 2015 respectively SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern a single set of administrative tax proceedings which was later severed in two parallel sets, both of which lasted for over ten years. Both sets concerned the establishment of the applicant’s company’s tax debt, and to that end, orders were issued provisionally charging the applicant company with the sum that the tax authorities considered being tax debt (in both applications, a total of 8,396,566 Macedonian Denars (MKD); approximately 136,530 Euros (EUR) was charged). The applicant company challenged the tax authorities’ decisions in both sets of proceedings and sought reimbursement of the amount in question. Due to the expiry of the statutory limitation period for establishing the tax debt (ten years), the proceedings were discontinued. However, at the same time, the applicant company’s request for reimbursement of the provisionally charged amount was refused on the grounds that the statutory limitation period for seeking the reimbursement of provisionally charged tax (ten years) had also expired. The applicant company argues that, due to the fact that its possibility of claiming reimbursement of the provisionally charged tax was linked to the proceedings establishing its tax duty, it was de facto deprived of a sum of money provisionally charged on account of the tax debt without any final determination of its tax obligation. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES Has there been an interference with the applicant company’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention? If so, has that interference been in the public interest and in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? Did such interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant company (see, for instance, Béláné Nagy v. Hungary [GC], no. 53080/13, §§ 112-115, ECHR 2016)?   APPENDIX Application no 29071/15   MAKEDONIJA TURIST is a company registered in Skopje and represented before the Court by Mr. Hadži-Zafirov, a lawyer practicing in Skopje.   Application no 35267/15   MAKEDONIJA TURIST is a company registered in Skopje and represented before the Court by Mr. Hadži-Zafirov a lawyer practicing in Skopje.