CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 janvier 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .sDEF29801 { width:95.84%; border-collapse:collapse } .s886916F8 { width:7.26%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sEC94EAF3 { width:25.32%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sF477D8B0 { width:24.22%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sBB8173A1 { width:27.68%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sBEF24FD1 { width:15.54%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s6BA354AD { width:7.26%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s92D5DB53 { width:25.32%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sD94FAA3B { width:24.22%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s9BB581CA { width:27.68%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sCA35C7 { width:15.54%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 7 February 2022   SECOND SECTION Application no. 25967/18 Kiraca KUZMANOVSKA and Others against North Macedonia lodged on 28 May 2018 communicated on 18 January 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns restitution proceedings, in which the relevant institutions and two levels of administrative courts dismissed the applicants’ claim to be restored with the goods confiscated from their predecessors (4,157 sheep and 85 horses), for which they had submitted evidence in the domestic proceedings, or to be given the equivalent thereof. The relevant bodies found that the evidence submitted was not relevant to the goods that were sought with the restitution request. The applicants complain under Article 6 about the arbitrariness of the domestic courts’ judgments and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the violation of their property rights in the restitution proceedings. 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, were the administrative courts’ judgments adopted in the restitution proceedings arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable (see Khamidov v. Russia , no. 72118/01, § 170, 15 November 2007; Anđelković v. Serbia , no.   1401/08, § 24, 9 April 2013; and Pavlović and Others v. Croatia , no.   13274/11, § 45, 2 April 2015)? 2.     Can the applicants’ claim for the goods, confiscated by their predecessors, to be restored to them, be regarded as "assets" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see Kopecky v.   Slovakia [GC], no. 44912/98, §§ 49 and 52, ECHR 2004-IX, and Lelas v.   Croatia , no. 55555/08, §§ 56-57, 20 May 2010)? If so, has the failure of the domestic authorities to restore the goods to them amounted to an interference with the applicants’ rights under this Article? If so, was such interference lawful and justified, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol   No. 1? APPENDIX List of applicants   No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth/registration Nationality Place of residence 1. Kiraca KUZMANOVSKA 1959 Macedonians/citizens of the Republic of North Macedonia Skopje 2. Tatjana DIMKOVSKA 1967 Kumanavo 3. Marija MIHAJLOVA 1938 Shtip 4. Marusha MIHAJLOVA 1952 Shtip 5. Natasha MILEVA 1972 Skopje 6. Aleksandar NAKOV 1978 Skopje 7. Kiraca NAKOVA 1950 Shtip 8. Sultana NAKOVA 1926 Skopje 9. Nikolcho NIKOLOV 1959 Skopje 10. Trajanka NIKOLOVA 1938 Shtip 11. Irena NIKOLOVSKA 1977 Skopje 12. Mirjana NIKOLOVSKA 1947 Skopje 13. Sonja PETKOVA 1970 Skopje 14. Mara SHTERIEVSKA 1963 Sveti Nikole 15. Aco SHTERJOV 1983 Skopje 16. Micho SHTERJOV 1968 Shtip 17. Ica TASHKOVA 1937 Pehchevo