CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 septembre 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 2 September 2019   FIRST SECTION Applications nos. 39107/18 and 39726/18 BAILIFF VLADO MICKOVSKI against North Macedonia and Vlado MICKOVSKI against North Macedonia lodged on 4 August 2018 and 14 August 2018 respectively SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES Both applications are lodged by the same person (a bailiff – as an individual and on behalf of his registered practice, founded in 2006 – hereinafter “the applicant”). They concern civil proceedings against the State and the Bailiff Chamber in which the applicant claimed compensation for pecuniary (actual damage and loss of profit) and non-pecuniary loss which resulted from seven-month suspension imposed by the Bailiff Chamber (in 2011) as a compulsory measure following a court’s decision to open criminal investigation against the applicant. The measure was lifted shortly after the investigation had been terminated due to the prosecutor’s refusal to press charges. The compensation claim was dismissed by a final decision of the Supreme Court of 17 May 2018 finding that the State cannot be held responsible in the absence of wrongful conviction or imprisonment. The domestic courts did not comment on the applicants’ arguments regarding the lack of evidence for the opening of the investigation and concerning the newly introduced legislative amendments which provided for a bailiff’s suspension only after an indictment act was confirmed in criminal proceedings. The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No.1 that the suspension had been an unjustified interference with his business interests related to the bailiff’s practice. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 (see, mutatis mutandis , Buzescu v. Romania , no. 61302/00, §§ 81-83, 24   May 2005)?   2.     If so, was that interference in accordance with the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No.1? In particular, did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant?