CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 juin 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 30 June 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 2336/21 BAKREVSKI KOMERC BITOLA DOOEL against North Macedonia lodged on 21 December 2020 communicated on 12 June 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns proceedings for compensation for deterioration of property seized at the customs. In 2000 the Customs Administration seized a vehicle which the applicant company sought to import, under a suspicion that it had committed a misdemeanour offence. The vehicle was placed in a designated customs terminal ran by company M. The misdemeanour charges against the applicant company were eventually dismissed but the vehicle was not returned to it. In June 2005 the applicant company lodged a compensation claim against the Customs Administration and company M. for the deteriorated condition of the vehicle and for the loss of earnings as a result of not being able to use it for its intended purpose. An expert report found that the vehicle was no longer suitable for use because many of its parts had been stolen or destroyed. In January 2006 the Customs Administration initiated administrative proceedings for determining whether the vehicle should be considered as a water tank or a regular truck, in order to determine whether it could be imported. The first-instance civil court stayed the compensation proceedings pending a final decision in the administrative proceedings. After the High Administrative Court discontinued the administrative proceedings as time-barred in July 2016, the compensation proceedings were resumed in October 2017. In October 2017, after the civil proceedings were resumed the applicant company withdrew its request lodged in October 2007 to change the respondent party in the compensation proceedings from the Customs Administration to the State. In May 2018 the first-instance court held that it was granting the request to change the respondent and changed it to the State. The applicant company appealed against that decision but its appeal was dismissed in October 2018. Three levels of jurisdiction subsequently dismissed the applicant company’s compensation claim on the ground that it had not been lodged against the proper respondent. They held that the State and company M. were not the proper respondents and that the compensation claim should have been lodged against the Customs Administration. The final decision was taken on 2 July 2020. The applicant company complains under Article 6 of the Convention about the overall unfairness of the compensation proceedings. It submits that the domestic courts favoured the Customs Administration by staying the proceedings and by changing the respondent party even after the applicant company had withdrawn its request to that effect. It also complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the infringement of its right to the peaceful enjoyment of its possessions, on the grounds that the vehicle was destroyed while retained at the terminal. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant company have a fair hearing in the determination of its civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was it denied the “right to a court”, on account of the fact that its compensation claim was dismissed for not being lodged against the proper respondent? (see Zubac v. Croatia [GC], no. 40160/12, §§   76-79, 5 April 2018, and, mutatis mutandis , Kostadin Mihaylov v.   Bulgaria , no. 17868/07, §§ 37-43, 27 March 2008, and Spasovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no. 45150/05, §§ 29-33, 10   June 2010 § 29-33)? 2.     Has there been an interference with the applicant company’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of its possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention? If so, was that interference in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, did it pursue a legitimate aim in the public interest and did it strike a fair balance between the interests of the individual and of the community as a whole, as required by Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 (see Andrzej Ruciński v. Poland , no.   22716/12, §§ 81-84, 5 October 2023, and the cases cited therein)? The parties are requested to provide to the Court a copy of the expert report of 7 March 2006 drawn up in the compensation proceedings.