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 } .sCA1147F8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s30870011 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super }   Communicated on 4 September 2018   FIRST SECTION Applications nos. 8550/17 and 9461/17 VIN SAT DOO VINICA and Others against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Natasha and SARA GORANSKI against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia lodged on 20 January 2017 and 21 January 2017 respectively SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES The applicants are wife and daughter of a certain I.G. (application no.   9461/17) and companies in which he appears as owner or co-owner, and authorised signatory of their accounts (application no. 8550/17). The applications concern a charging order of 2012 in respect of the applicants’ bank accounts made by an investigating judge pending criminal proceedings against I.G., involving organised crime. The order was made for the purpose of preventing further criminal offences and securing a potential compensation claim by the State related to unpaid taxes. I.G. was convicted for criminal conspiracy, attempted murder and usury by the final judgment of the Skopje Court of Appeal of 10 November 2014. He was also ordered to pay, jointly with other co-accused, compensation and legal costs to the victims. No order was made for compensation to the State on account of unpaid taxes. In the proceedings concerning the applicants’ requests to have the charging order lifted the Skopje Court of Appeal, by separate decisions, dated 22 December 2015, 9 and 10 February 2016, upheld the applicants’ appeals and remitted the case, instructing the Skopje Court of First Instance to re-examine the necessity of the measure. It appears that no further decision was made. In reply to their fresh application of 12   December 2016, the applicants were informed that the measure could remain valid pending the criminal proceedings. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Were the applicants denied the right of access to a court in breach of Article 6   §   1 of the Convention, given that the Skopje Court of First Instance failed to decide on their requests to have the charging order concerning their bank accounts removed after I.G.’s conviction had become final (see, mutatis mutandis , Ganci v. Italy , no. 41576/98, §   31, ECHR   2003 ‑ XI; Musumeci v. Italy , no. 33695/96, §   43, 11 January 2005; and Gallico v. Italy , no. 53723/00, §   34, 28 June 2005)? The parties are requested to provide information and relevant documents in respect of any decisions of the domestic courts regarding the charging order of the applicants’ bank accounts.   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right of the peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1? If so, was that interference necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties? In particular, did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicants (see Borzhonov v. Russia , no. 18274/04, §§   59-61, 22 January 2009; JGK Statyba Ltd and   Guselnikovas v. Lithuania , no. 3330/12, §§   127-145, 5 November 2013; and Džinić v. Croatia , no. 38359/13, §§   59-82, 17 May 2016)?   APPENDIX Application no. 8550/17 The applicant companies, VIN SAT DOO VINICA, KRATELSAT DOOEL VINICA and VIN INVEST DOO UVOZ IZVOZ VINICA, are companies incorporated in Vinica. They are represented by A. Godjo, a lawyer practising in Ohrid. Application no. 9461/17 The first applicant, Natasha GORANSKA was born in 1972. The second applicant, Sara GORANSKA was born in 1997. Both applicants live in Vinica and are represented by A. Godjo, a lawyer practising in Ohrid.