CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 18 juin 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s1C7BEF1E { margin-left:28.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .s21B97EC1 { width:25.99pt; display:inline-block } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s9F8EB0C0 { width:18.63pt; display:inline-block } .s9E97F54A { width:85.05pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   087 24.2.2005   Press release issued by the Registrar   Two Chamber judgments concerning “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following two Chamber judgments, none of which are final. [1]     Veselinski v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (application no. 45658/99) Djidrovski v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (no. 46447/99)   In both cases the Court held unanimously:   that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention of Human Rights;   that it was not necessary to examine the applicants’ complaints under Article 14 of the Convention (prohibition of discrimination) taken in conjunction with the Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   Under Article 41 of the Convention (just satisfaction) the Court held that the finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction for any damage and dismissed the applicants’ claims for costs and expenses.   (The judgments are available only in English.)   1.   Principal facts   Dimitar Veselinski was born in 1924 and Dimitrija Djidrovski was born in 1923. They both live in Skopje. They are retired officers of the former Yugoslav army.   As former officers of the Yugoslav army they had been entitled, under federal legislation enacted in 1990, to purchase their apartments at a price which was reduced by the amount of their contributions as serving officers to a fund for the construction of army apartments. This legislation remained in force after the independence of FYROM and regulations were adopted to implement the arrangements in 1992 and 1994.   The applicants both applied unsuccessfully to purchase their apartments at the reduced price provided for under the original federal legislation, Mr Veselinski in 1992 and Mr Djidrovski between 1992 and 1994.   The applicants both instituted judicial proceedings and obtained decisions in their favour first from a Skopje municipal court and then the Skopje Appellate Court.   Both applicants subsequently purchased their apartments at the reduced price as foreseen under the original arrangements.   In 1996, after the applicants had completed the purchase of their apartments, the Constitutional Court abrogated the relevant legislation but without retroactive effect.   Subsequently, however, in separate decisions the Supreme Court found that neither applicant had been entitled to purchase the property in question at the reduced price. The relevant judgments were served on the applicants, but it does not appear that the FYROM Government have taken any steps to enforce them. Both applicants continue to live in the apartments.   2. Complaints   The applicants claimed to be victims of a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No.1.     3. Decision of the Court   The Court noted that in essence the case concerned the price applicable to the purchase of the apartments; at most the applicants ran the risk of being required to pay the difference. The Government had submitted that this did not fall within the scope of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1.   A federal law that had remained in force until it had been abrogated in 1996 had provided for sale of apartments to army servicemen at a beneficial price.   In 1996, when the Constitutional Court had abrogated the relevant federal legislation, it had done so without retroactive effect, thereby impliedly endorsing all purchases of apartments at beneficial prices that had been completed prior to its decision, including therefore the purchases by the applicants of their apartments.   In the circumstances, taking into account the applicants’ previous contributions to the army apartment construction fund and the agreements in force at the time, the Court considered that the applicants could be regarded as having had a “legitimate expectation” that they would be able to purchase their apartments at a reduced price. According to the Court’s case-law, such a “legitimate expectation” was capable of attracting the protection of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   The Supreme Court had subsequently held that the applicants had had no right to buy their apartments at the reduced price. While the European Court had only a limited power to deal with alleged errors of fact or law committed by national courts, it considered that the Supreme Court decision had failed, without any explanation, to take into account the pre-existing legal position and practice.   As a result of that decision the beneficial condition attaching to the applicants’ purchase of their apartments had been, apparently, invalidated and they were liable to a claim to pay further sums of money. This could be regarded as an unjustified interference with their peaceful enjoyment of their possessions and there had therefore been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   ***   These summaries by the Registry do not bind the Court. The full texts of the Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Press contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)   Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Fax: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. Since 1 November 1998 it has sat as a full-time Court composed of an equal number of judges to that of the States party to the Convention. The Court examines the admissibility and merits of applications submitted to it. It sits in Chambers of 7 judges or, in exceptional cases, as a Grand Chamber of 17 judges. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe supervises the execution of the Court’s judgments. More detailed information about the Court and its activities can be found on its Internet site. [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer.