CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 septembre 2018

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s72EB7DC5 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sB2892748 { height:131.9pt } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s8F670191 { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; list-style-position:inside } .sFE1B2AD { height:131.8pt }   Communicated on 4 September 2018   FIRST SECTION Application no. 31620/15 Jordan NASKOV and Others against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and 2 other applications (see list appended) SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASEs The applications concern a proprio motu quashing of a final restitution order conferring on the applicants’ title to immovable property. In the reopened proceedings the applicants’ request was partially dismissed due to legal and factual impossibility to enforce the final restitution order on account of third parties having constructed objects on the land in the meantime. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES Was the quashing of the restitution order of 24 June 2002 that conferred on the applicants title to immovable property in the public interest and in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? If so, has the interference with the applicants’ proprietary rights been necessary and justified within the meaning of Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Kot v. Russia , no. 20887/03, § 29, 18   January 2007)? APPENDIX   No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant Date of birth Place of residence   31620/15 24/06/2015 Jordan NASKOV 16/12/1938 Skopje   Cvetan NASKOV 09/03/1950 Skopje   Slobodan NASKOV SKOPJE   Danica KISELEOSKA 09/11/1941 Skopje   Zvezda MAKAROVSKA 10/11/1947 Skopje   Tomislav NASKOV 28/09/1939 SKOPJE   Koce NASKOV 03/06/1943 Skopje   Lazar NASKOV 04/09/1949 Skopje   Nada DIMOVA 24/12/1937 Skopje   Vancho NASKOV 16/01/1972 Skopje   34859/15 15/07/2015   14659/16 08/03/2016