CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 octobre 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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s1DE04B9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } Published on 7 November 2022   SECOND SECTION Application no. 19198/19 Mitko PETREVSKI against North Macedonia lodged on 2 April 2019 communicated on 19 October 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the impossibility for the applicant to participate in the proceedings before the Constitutional Court for review of the constitutionality and legality of a detailed urban plan under which the applicant was entitled to build on his plot of land. The applicant made a written submission to the Constitutional Court, which allegedly remained silent in respect of the applicant’s arguments. At a session of which the applicant was allegedly unaware, the Constitutional Court quashed the plan solely because no archaeological examinations had been made on the applicant’s plot of land prior to its adoption, as required by law. The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that he was not given the opportunity to participate in the impugned proceedings, which were decisive for his right to build on the plot. He further complains about a lack of adversariness in those proceedings.       QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Was Article   6 §   1 of the Convention under its civil head applicable to the proceedings before the Constitutional Court (see Ruiz-Mateos v. Spain, 23   June 1993, §§ 57-60, Series A no. 262, and Gavella v. Croatia (dec.), no.   33244/02, ECHR 2006 ‑ XII (extracts))?   If so, did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant given the opportunity to effectively participate in the proceedings before the Constitutional Court? Was the principle of adversariness respected in those proceedings (see Ruiz-Mateos, cited above, §§ 63-68; Gavella , cited above; and Milatová and Others v. the Czech Republic , no. 61811/00, §§ 59-66, ECHR 2005-V)?