CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 1 décembre 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 22 December 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 18364/21 Iva ZENDELSKA against North Macedonia lodged on 1 April 2021 communicated on 1 December 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the dismissal of the applicant, a diplomat employed with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA), after her security clearance was revoked. In 2010 the applicant was issued with a security clearance certificate (hereinafter “the certificate”), valid for 10 years. On 10 October 2017 the relevant Directorate revoked her certificate on the grounds that she constituted a security risk, as the conditions under which the certificate had previously been issued had changed. The revocation decision did not contain any further reasons. According to section 54 of the Classified Information Act which was in force at the time, the decision to revoke a security clearance should not disclose the reasons underlying the grounds for revocation. The applicant complained to the administrative courts about the lack of reasons justifying the revocation of the certificate, but the courts dismissed her complaint and endorsed the decision of the Directorate, without providing any further reasons for the revocation. The final decision in those proceedings was taken on 14 October 2020. Following the revocation of the certificate, the MFA decided to terminate the applicant’s employment. She initiated civil proceedings against the dismissal and asked the courts to annul it, but the courts at three levels dismissed her complaint. They found that, as provided in section 63-a of the Foreign Affairs Act, the certificate had been indispensable for the applicant to be able to fulfil her duties in that post. In those civil proceedings the applicant set the value of her claim at around 40,000 Macedonian denars ((MKD), approximately 650 euros (EUR)). After her claim was dismissed, she was ordered to cover the State’s litigation costs in the amount of MKD   45,565 (approximately EUR   740 euros). The final decision in those proceedings was taken on 27   October 2020. The applicant complains, without identifying specific Convention Articles, that the principle of equality of arms was infringed in both the administrative and the civil proceedings – in particular, the courts did not provide any reasons to justify the conclusion that she posed a security risk. She also complains that, in the civil proceedings, the State’s litigation costs were assessed on the basis of advocates’ fees, even though the State was represented by the State Attorney’s Office, and that they were excessive in the light of her financial situation. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of her civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, in the proceedings before the administrative courts concerning her security clearance and in the proceedings before the civil courts concerning her dismissal? In particular, were there adequate procedural safeguards capable of counterbalancing any possible limitations of the applicant’s fair-trial guarantees (see Regner v.   the Czech Republic [GC], no.   35289/11, §§ 146-58, 19 September 2017, and Corneschi v. Romania , no. 21609/16, §§ 101-14, 11 January 2022)?   2.     Has the applicant exhausted the effective domestic remedies, as required under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, with regard to her complaint about the litigation costs in the civil proceedings? In particular, did she raise that complaint before the civil courts at least in substance (see   Radomilja and   Others v. Croati a [GC], nos.   37685/10 and 22768/12, §   117, 20 March 2018, and Kandarakis v.   Greece , nos.   48345/12 and 2   others, § 77, 11 June 2020)?   3.     If the previous question is answered in the affirmative, did the order for the applicant to cover the State’s litigation costs in the amount of 45,565 Macedonian denars (approximately 740 euros) violate her right of access to a court guaranteed under Article   6 §   1 of the Convention (see Cindrić and Bešlić v. Croatia , no.   72152/13, §§ 116-23, 6 September 2016)?