CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 15 juillet 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 4 August 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 1958/21 Natasha GORANSKA and Sara GORANSKA against North Macedonia lodged on 18 December 2020 communicated on 15 July 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns allegations of a lack of access to a court due to a pre-condition that an individual responsibility of a judge must be established before filing a compensation claim against the respondent State for judicial misconduct. The applicants are wife and daughter of a certain I.G. In 2012 an investigating judge issued a charging order in respect of the applicants’ bank accounts pending criminal proceedings against I.G. and others, involving organised crime. The order was made for the purpose of preventing further criminal offences and securing a potential compensation claim by the State related to unpaid taxes. I.G. was ultimately convicted for criminal conspiracy, attempted murder and usury by a final judgment of the Skopje Court of Appeal of 10   November   2014. The final judgment for the rest of the accused was upheld by the Supreme Court on 2   November   2016, and became enforceable on 16   March   2017. No order was made for compensation to the State on account of unpaid taxes. The applicants’ bank accounts were unfrozen on 19   July   2017. The applicants instituted civil proceedings for compensation against the respondent State, alleging that the charging order remained in force for two years and eight months following the final conviction of I.G. and that he was not convicted for unpaid taxes. The applicants sought the interest they would have gained had they been able to dispose of their accounts. Two levels of jurisdiction declared the applicants’ claims inadmissible without examining the merits, finding that there was no identifiable culprit or wrongful act by the judges who had ordered the freezing of the bank accounts, i.e. no final decision establishing their criminal liability for judicial misconduct. The applicants complain under Article 6 of the Convention about their lack of access to a court due to the pre-condition that an individual responsibility of a judge be established before filing a compensation claim against the respondent State for judicial misconduct. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Did the applicants have access to a court for the determination of their civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6   §   1 of the Convention? In particular, bearing in mind all the relevant circumstances of the case, has the restriction of the applicants’ rights of access to court pursued a legitimate aim and been proportionate to that aim (see Fabbri and Others v. San Marino [GC], nos. 6319/21 and 2 others, §§ 124, 126, 24 September 2024 ; Zouboulidis v. Greece (no. 3) , no. 57246/21, §§ 64-66, 4 June 2024; Grzęda v. Poland [GC], no. 43572/18, §§ 342-343, 15 March 2022; Momčilović v.   Croatia , no. 11239/11, §§ 41-43, 26 March 2015)?