CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 29 janvier 2025

.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 } .s96D82958 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 17 February 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 18057/23 Karolina TRIMCHESKA against North Macedonia lodged on 13 April 2023 communicated on 29 January 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the length of criminal proceedings against the applicant which lasted nine years, one month and twenty-seven days at two levels of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court at two levels upheld the applicant’s length remedy and awarded her the equivalent of approximately 407 euros (EUR) in just satisfaction. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.   Can the applicant still claim to be a victim of a violation of the Convention, within the meaning of Article   34? In particular, did the sum awarded by the Supreme Court provide her with sufficient and appropriate redress capable of removing the applicant’s 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 the applicant can still claim to be a victim, has the length of the criminal proceedings in her case been in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement under Article   6 §   1 of the Convention (see Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, §§ 43-44, 27 June 2000; Zhupnik v. Ukraine , no.   20792/05, §§ 27-31, 9 December 2010; and Eftimov v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 59974/08, §§   29-35, 2 July 2015)?