CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 23 mars 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .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 } .s7ACB8D74 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s6C772076 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s8F670191 { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; list-style-position:inside }   Communicated on 23 March 2018   FIRST SECTION Application no. 2213/15 Isak AJRULI against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and 4 other applications (see list appended) SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern lustration proceedings in which the Fact Verification Commission (“the Commission”), on the basis of documentary evidence that it had obtained on its own motion, established that the applicants had collaborated with the former regime’s security forces. Those findings, which were immediately published on the Commission’s website before being confirmed at two levels of administrative court, had the resulting effect of declaring the applicants unfit to apply or perform public office. The applicants did not participate in the proceedings before the Commission. Their requests for an oral hearing before the Administrative Courts were to no avail. The courts did not adduce any evidence (written material, witnesses and experts) that some applicants proposed to contest the findings of fact. They also allegedly failed to provide a more substantial explanation as to whether the applicants’ alleged collaboration with the security bodies of the communist era had satisfied the qualitative criteria specified in the 2012 Lustration Act. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of their civil rights and obligations in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, (a)     did they have the right effectively to participate in the impugned proceedings? In this context, were the applicants in applications nos.   8082/15; 17607/15 and 40411/15 given the opportunity to present evidence in their favour and to obtain the attendance of witnesses on their behalf, as required by this Article? (b)     Has there been an oral hearing in the present cases, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? (c)     Did the decisions in the applicants’ cases contain sufficient reasons, as required under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Karajanov v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no. 2229/15, §§ 55-63, 6   April 2017)?   2.     Has there been a   violation of the applicants’ right to respect for their private life, within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention? In particular, (a)     Was the publication of the Commission’s decisions on its web site before they became final compatible with the requirements of this Article (applications nos. 2213/15; 17607/15; 32576/15 and 40411/15) (see ibid., §§ 70-77)? (b)     Was the domestic authorities’ analysis in applications nos.   8082/15 and 32576/15 sufficiently thorough to satisfy the test of “necessity in a democratic society” inherent in this Article? In the given circumstances, was the interference with these applicants’ right to respect for their private life justified within the meaning of this Article (see Ivanovski v.   the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no. 29908/11, §§ 176-188, 21 January 2016)?   3.     Did the applicants Mr H. Sejfedin and Mr N. Kosturski (applications nos. 8082/15 and 40411/15) have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Articles 6 and 8, as required by Article 13 of the Convention? APPENDIX     No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant Date of birth Place of residence Represented by   2213/15 15/12/2014 Isak AJRULI 16/03/1954 Tetovo   Goran STOEV   8082/15 06/02/2015 Sejfedin HARUNI 26/01/1944 Gradec, Gostivar   Besim REDJEPI   17607/15 07/04/2015 Vladimir MILCHIN 29/04/1947 Skopje   Ljubomir MIHAJLOVSKI   32576/15 29/06/2015 Kiril PSALTIROV 11/10/1941 Skopje   Misho ZHIVKOVSKI   40411/15 07/08/2015 Nikola KOSTURSKI 06/03/1944 Bitola   Natasha NAJDENOVA LEVIKJ