CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 mars 2023

.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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 17 April 2023   SECOND SECTION Application no. 24705/21 Stojan TRPKOVSKI against North Macedonia lodged on 5 May 2021 communicated on 28 March 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns a final order of the domestic courts for a) sale of a house which is the applicant’s and his family’s only home where he has been living since he was born and b) division of the received funds between him and the three co-owners, as it was impossible to physically divide the house. The courts dismissed the applicant’s proposal to be declared a single owner of the house and to reimburse the co-owners for their respective parts, giving weight to the fact that the latter had title to a bigger part of the house. The first-instance court also concluded, and the Court of Appeal did not hold otherwise, that the expected sale price of the house would be high given the construction prospects on the land in question. Invoking Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention, the applicant complains that he and his family will become homeless as a result of the court’s decision.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his home, within the meaning of Article   8 §   1 of the Convention (see Vrzić v.   Croatia , no. 43777/13, § 59, 12 July 2016, and Zehentner v. Austria , no.   20082/02, § 54, 16 July 2009)? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article   8 §   2 of the Convention (see Ivanova and Cherkezov v.   Bulgaria , no. 46577/15, §§ 52-54, 21 April 2016; Brežec v. Croatia , no.   7177/10, §§ 44-50, 18 July 2013?