CEDHCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 janvier 2023
- ECLI
- ECLI:CEDH:001-222858
- Date
- 4 janvier 2023
- Publication
- 4 janvier 2023
droits fondamentauxCEDH
Source : DILA / Judilibre · open data
Mes notes
privées · visibles par vous seulRésumé structuré
version préliminaireFaits
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Procédure
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Question juridique
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Solution
source officielleCommunicated
Résumé généré automatiquement — à vérifier avec la décision originale.
Analyse IA non disponible
Générez un résumé intelligent de cette décision
Texte intégral
.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 } .s8F51A45C { width:91.92%; border-collapse:collapse } .sD679166 { width:8.44%; 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 } .sBA9AD033 { width:22.74%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s71805B56 { width:29.66%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sAA0B9CB5 { width:21.76%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2AAD7AC0 { width:17.42%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sEDAD8F90 { width:8.44%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6A004302 { width:22.74%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4764E10C { width:29.66%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s41C5CDEA { width:21.76%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s1324E5F5 { width:17.42%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 23 January 2023   SECOND SECTION Application no. 20630/20 Despot ANTOVSKI and Others against North Macedonia lodged on 20 May 2020 communicated on 4 January 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the length of enforcement (since 2013) of a claim against a private person concerning the handing over of movable and immovable property and property rights acquired through inheritance proceedings ( тужбено барање за предавање на недвижен и подвижен имот и имотни права утврдени со оставинско решение ). The Supreme Court, at two levels of jurisdiction, upheld the applicants’ complaint about the length of enforcement, awarded them approximately 480 euros (EUR) (EUR 80 per applicant), and fixed a three-month time-limit for the bailiff to complete the enforcement. It appears that the claim has still not been fully enforced. The applicants complain under Article 6 of the Convention about the lengthy non-enforcement. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Can the applicants still claim to be victims of a violation of the Convention, within the meaning of Article   34? In particular, did the sums awarded by the Supreme Court provide them with sufficient and appropriate redress capable of removing the applicants’ victim status (see Adži-Spirkoska and Others v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (dec.), nos.   38914/05 and 17879/05, 3 November 2011, and Petrović v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no. 30721/15, §§   20-21, 22 June 2017)?   2.     If not, was the length of the enforcement in the case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article   6 §   1 of the Convention (see Burdov v. Russia (no. 2) , no. 33509/04, §§ 65 et seq., ECHR 2009; and Krsto Nikolov v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no. 13904/02, §§ 20-28, 23   October 2008)?   APPENDIX List of applicants Application no. 20630/20   No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality Place of residence 1. Despot ANTOVSKI 1952 Macedonian/ citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia   Tetovo 2. Ankica ANTOVSKA 1978 Tetovo 3. Dushko ANTOVSKI 1983 Tetovo 4. Danijela TANEVSKA 1968 Jagodina 5. Lina TANEVSKA 1940 Jagodina 6. Nebojsha TANEVSKI 1966 Jagodina    Citations
Aucune citation répertoriée pour cette décision.
Décisions connexes
Aucune décision similaire identifiée pour le moment.
Synthèse
- Juridiction
- CEDH
- Chambre
- CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
- Date
- 4 janvier 2023
- Matière
- droits fondamentaux
Référence
ECLI:CEDH:001-222858
Données disponibles
- Texte intégral
- Résumé officiel