CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 21 mars 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt }   Communicated on 21 March 2016   FIRST SECTION Application no. 4051/13 DOOEL ZLATEN EGEJ against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia lodged on 4 January 2013 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Dooel Zlaten Egej, is a single-owner limited liability company incorporated in Delčevo, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (“the applicant company”). The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant company, may be summarised as follows. Since 2001 the applicant company has been operating in the recycling sector. As instructed by the relevant inspectorate and on the basis of legislative amendments that had meanwhile entered into force, on 16   July   2007 the applicant company requested from the Ministry of Environment and Land Planning (“the Ministry”) a licence for the storage and treatment of waste (“the licence”). On 18 September 2008 the Ministry’s Environmental Directorate drew up an opinion in which it recommended that the Minister provide the licence. The applicant company several times asked the Ministry to decide upon its request. The Ministry issued the requested licence on, according to the date inscribed thereon, 10   September 2008. According to the official stamp affixed to the licence, it was registered in the Ministry’s records on 15 July 2009. The licence was issued to the applicant company on 23 February 2010. On an unspecified date the applicant company brought a civil action against the respondent State claiming pecuniary compensation for the income of which it had been deprived for the period between 16 July 2007 and 23 February 2010. The applicant company claimed that during that period it had not been able to operate and that it had taken too long for the Ministry to issue the licence. The defendant replied that the late issuance of the licence had been due to the failure of the applicant company to notify the Ministry of a change of its seat. By a judgment of 20 October 2010, the Kočani Court of First Instance dismissed the applicant’s claim, holding that such a claim could only be submitted after the relevant administrative decision was annulled or it had been established that an administrative body had unlawfully refused to take the appropriate action. On 20 December   2010 the Štip Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the reasons provided by the first-instance court. On 15 February 2011 the applicant company brought an action before the Administrative Court seeking that it establish the “unlawful conduct [on the part of the Ministry] between 16 July 2007 and 23 February 2010, during which time it [had] failed to decide upon its request within the statutory time-limit. Because of such unlawful conduct, [the applicant company had been unable to operate] and [had] sustained damage”. On 27 October 2011 the Administrative Court dismissed the claim, finding that it could have only been lodged if the alleged unlawful conduct on the part of the administrative body had still been ongoing, which had not been so in the applicant’s case. It further stated that any compensation claim related to the alleged failure of the Ministry to act in good time should be decided in civil proceedings before the ordinary courts. On 8 October 2012 the Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s judgment and confirmed that any compensation claim was to be decided in civil proceedings under the general rules of tort law. COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that no court acknowledged its own jurisdiction to decide on his compensation claim against the respondent State. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Was the applicant company accorded the right of access to a court under Article 6 of the Convention in respect of its compensation claim against the respondent State? If not, was the bar on access to a court justified and proportionate? The Government are invited to provide copies of any relevant court decisions concerning compensation claims based on similar grounds to those in the present case.