CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 octobre 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 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 10 November 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 6548/22 Cano NESHEVSKI and SKROMNOST DOOEL BITOLA against North Macedonia lodged on 26 January 2022 communicated on 20 October 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns misdemeanour proceedings in which the applicants were fined for breaches of the Food Safety Act. The second applicant is a company that operates a village shop, and the first applicant is its sole owner. On 13 April 2020 an inspection was carried out on the second applicant’s premises, which established non-compliance with the hygienic and food safety standards ( inter alia because it stocked unsafe frozen food without labels). On 9 September 2020 the Misdemeanour Commission of the Food and Veterinary Agency found the applicants guilty of misdemeanours under sections 27(1) and 44(2) in connection with section 133(1) points 3 and 12 and (2) of the Food Safety Act. In accordance with section 133 of the Food Safety Act, the applicants were fined EUR 5,000 and EUR 1,500, respectively. They challenged that decision, complaining, inter alia , that it was unclear why the products were deemed unsafe as they were frozen and labelled, and they were immediately taken out of circulation; and that the first applicant could not be held liable as a responsible person for the second applicant as he was not its manager. The applicants further argued that the misdemeanour provisions of the Food Safety Act had not been harmonized with the 2019 Misdemeanour Act and therefore they were no longer applicable. They relied on section 132 of the 2019 Misdemeanour Act, which required harmonization of the misdemeanour provisions of other laws with that Act within six months from its entry into force, that is by 26 November 2019, after which they would no longer be applicable. The maximum fine under the 2019 Misdemeanour Act for a small enterprise (like the second applicant) was EUR 2,000, and the maximum fine for the responsible person in a legal entity was set at EUR 500. Lastly, they argued that the fine had been disproportionate as no damage had been caused and they had no previous record. On 15 April 2021 the Administrative Court dismissed the applicants’ administrative-dispute claim without holding a hearing. It referred to section   38(1) point 2 of the Administrative Procedure Act, which exceptionally allowed the court to decide without holding a hearing if only issues of law were in dispute. Several paragraphs of that judgment referred to facts, names and entities which did not correspond to the applicants’ situation. No specific reasoning was provided to the applicants’ claims or arguments. On 22 September 2021 the Higher Administrative Court dismissed the applicants’ appeal and upheld the lower court’s judgment, reiterating some of the erroneous references. A copy of that judgment was served on the applicants’ lawyer on 13 October 2021. Relying on Articles 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicants complain that the decision of the Administrative Court was not adequately reasoned and that no oral hearing was held before it. The Higher Administrative Court failed to remedy those deficiencies. Under Article 7 of the Convention, the applicants allege that they were fined on the basis of invalid provisions of the Food Safety Act which were not harmonized with the 2019 Misdemeanour Act within the six-month time-limit. The fines imposed on them under the Food Safety Act exceeded the maximum set in the 2019 Misdemeanour Act. Lastly, relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicants complain that the fines imposed on them were unlawful and disproportionate. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against them, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? In particular:   (a) Has there been a breach of the applicants’ right to an oral hearing under Article   6 § 1 on account of the fact that no oral hearing was held in the domestic proceedings (see, for general principles, Jussila v. Finland [GC], no. 73053/01, §§ 40-43, ECHR 2006-XIV; and see, mutatis mutandis, Mitkova v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no. 48386/09, §§ 56-63, 15 October 2015)?   (b) Were the judgments of the domestic courts adequately reasoned (see, for general principles, Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (no. 2) [GC], no.   19867/12, §§ 83-84, 11 July 2017; see also S.C. IMH Suceava S.R.L. v.   Romania , no. 24935/04, §§ 40-41, 29 October 2013;   Fomin v. Moldova , no. 36755/06, §§ 31-34, 11 October 2011; and Boldea v. Romania , no.   19997/02, §§ 28-30, 15 February 2007)?   2.     Was there a sufficiently clear and accessible legal basis for the decision to hold the applicants liable for misdemeanours under the Food Safety Act and for the fines that were imposed on them, as required by Article 7 of the Convention (see Yüksel Yalçınkaya v. Türkiye [GC], no. 15669/20, §§ 237-242, 26 September 2023; Del Río Prada v. Spain [GC], no. 42750/09, §§ 77-80, ECHR 2013)?   3.     Has there been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in the present case? In particular, did the fines imposed on the applicants constitute an interference with their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions under Article 1 of Protocol No.1 to the Convention? If so, was that interference lawful and necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties (see, mutatis mutandis , Krayeva v. Ukraine , no. 72858/13, §§ 23-35, 13 January 2022; Markus v. Latvia , no. 17483/10, §   75, 11 June 2020; and Sud Fondi S.r.l. and Others v. Italy , no. 75909/01, §   137, 20 January 2009)?