CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 janvier 2026

.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 26 January 2026   SECOND SECTION Application no. 42461/23 Ljube CVETKOSKI against North Macedonia lodged on 30 November 2023 communicated on 6 January 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns compensation proceedings for the alleged loss of value of the applicant’s car, resulting from the prolonged retention of his vehicle registration certificate, which had been held as evidence in criminal proceedings against other individuals. In 1998 the applicant’s car was seized in the context of criminal proceedings against other individuals. In 1999 the car was returned to the applicant, but the registration certificate for the car was retained as it remained relevant evidence in the ongoing criminal proceedings against those individuals. In 2018 the criminal proceedings were discontinued on account of the expiration of the statute of limitations. The trial court subsequently informed the applicant that he could bring civil proceedings to claim compensation. In 2019 the registration certificate was returned to the applicant, who subsequently lodged a claim for compensation against the respondent State, contending that the car had depreciated in value during the 20 years in which he was unable to register or use it. He submitted a damage appraisal report, which assessed the loss by establishing the car’s value at three points in time: when the car was seized, when the car was returned but the registration certificate was retained, and when the certificate was finally returned. The domestic courts at two levels dismissed the applicant’s claim, holding that the authorities could not be held liable as their conduct had been lawful. The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the prolonged retention of his vehicle registration certificate resulted in a significant depreciation of his car, for which he received no compensation. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, on account of the retention of the registration certificate of his car? In particular:   (a)     Was the retention of the registration certificate for a period of 20 years, as evidence in criminal proceeding against other individuals, lawful within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Lekić v. Slovenia [GC], no.   36480/07, §§   94-95, 11   December   2018)?   (b)     Did the retention of the registration certificate pursue a legitimate aim?   (c)     Did the retention of the registration certificate strike a fair balance between the general interest and the applicant’s property rights (see Stołkowski v. Poland , no. 58795/15, §§   52-57, 21   December   2021)?