CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 11 September 2019   FIRST SECTION Application no. 45672/17 Ivana ANDREEVSKI against North Macedonia lodged on 20 June 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant was denied a maternity allowance on the grounds that her employer had received payments from third parties during her maternity leave and she had been its sole employee at the material time. According to domestic law, this prevented the applicant from obtaining the allowance in question. She challenged that decision, but a second-instance commission and two instances of administrative courts dismissed her appeals. Her arguments that the employer had continued to operate through various agents who were not employed, and that she had had no influence over third parties making payments to her employer during the period in question were not considered as relevant. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has there been an interference with the applicant’s rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? If so, was that interference justified (see Béláné Nagy v.   Hungary [GC], no. 53080/13, § 126, 13 December 2016; Klein v. Austria , no. 57028/00, § 57, 3 March 2011 and Kjartan Ásmundsson v. Iceland , no.   60669/00, § 45, ECHR 2004 ‑ IX)?