CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 avril 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } Published on 28 April 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 1441/21 Chedomir VELINOV against North Macedonia lodged on 18 December 2020 communicated on 11 April 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns civil proceedings for title to 26 square meters (sq. m.) of land, which the applicant allegedly lost with the digitalisation of the land registry. The applicant argued before the domestic courts that in the process of digitalisation the State authorities had unlawfully reduced his original plot by 9 sq. m. and had taken away other parts of it, while providing him, in exchange, with 17 sq. m. of land from a neighbouring plot to which he had not previously held title. The domestic courts at two levels dismissed his claim, finding that the 9 sq. m. (out of 233 in total) fell within the 5% maximum deviation in the process of digitalisation, permitted under the relevant statutory provisions. They further found that granting the applicant title to the claimed 26 sq. m. would unjustly expand his plot, that he had title to parts of other land (despite his arguments that his neighbour used de facto that land) and that a street had been built on parts of the claimed land. The applicant complains that he was unlawfully deprived of his property, in violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. He also complains that the original shape of his plot was changed and that it was left without an access to the nearby street.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1. Did the applicant suffer any significant disadvantage, within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (b) of the Convention (see Borg and Vella v. Malta (dec.), no.14501/12, §§ 39-43, 3 February 2015; and Strezovski and Others v. North Macedonia , nos. 14460/16 and 7 others, §§ 46-49, 27 February 2020; X and others v. Ireland , nos. 23851/20 and 24360/20, § 63, 22 June 2023)?   2. If so, has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1, by the reorganisation of his plot of land following the digitalisation of the land registry? In the affirmative, was that interference in accordance with the law and proportionate (see Former King of Greece and Others v. Greece [GC], no. 25701/94, §§ 79 et seq., ECHR 2000-XII; Vistiņš and Perepjolkins v. Latvia [GC], no. 71243/01, §§ 95-98, 25 October 2012; Vijatović v.   Croatia , no. 50200/13, §§ 46-58, 16 February 2016; Arsovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no. 30206/06, §§ 46-62, 15 January 2013; and Aygün v. Turkey , no. 35658/06, §§ 39 et seq., 14 June 2011)?