CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 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 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 2 February 2026   SECOND SECTION Application no. 48735/21 Stefan ORACHESKI and Biljana ORACHESKA against North Macedonia lodged on 1 October 2021 communicated on 13 January 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concern restitution proceedings in which the Restitution Commission (“the commission”) awarded the applicants monetary compensation for a plot of land previously confiscated from their predecessors, instead of granting them title to the plot. The commission found that part of the plot was a sidewalk in common use, and that a private company had obtained title to other parts of the plot. It dismissed the applicants’ claim to return the plot, relying on sections 10(1) and 11(1) of the Restitution Act, according to which land which was in common use and land which had been transferred to a private party before the entry into force of the Restitution Act could not be returned to the previous owners. The administrative courts at two levels confirmed the commission’s decision. The Higher Administrative Court did not address the applicants’ argument, raised in their appeal, that the company had obtained title to its parts of the plot after the entry into force of the Restitution Act. The applicants complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the refusal to restore the title to the plot was unlawful and disproportionate.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Did the applicants have a legitimate expectation to obtain, fully or partially, title to the plot in question pursuant to the provisions of the Restitution Act? If so, was the refusal of the authorities to accommodate such a claim lawful and proportionate, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol   No. 1 to the Convention (see Kopecký v. Slovakia   [GC], no.   44912/98, § 35, ECHR 2004 ‑ IX, and Stojanovski and Others v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no.   14174/09, §§ 46-61, 23 October 2014)?