CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 mars 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s2FDFA002 { width:93.14%; border-collapse:collapse } .sD0CC3F5A { width:8.08%; 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 } .sD948FBD7 { width:26.9%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDD118D98 { width:12.1%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s5B5094E3 { width:29.9%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sA5EAF5CE { width:23.02%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s360C4469 { width:8.08%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s912F35BE { width:26.9%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF34E8F46 { width:12.1%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6E31734A { width:29.9%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF9BC9680 { width:23.02%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sD35B384B { width:21.78%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s7277B24C { width:18.58%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s33E1B707 { width:21.68%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s46019CD7 { width:21.78%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7E2F6F42 { width:18.58%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sE9A30EDC { width:21.68%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Communicated on 19 March 2020 Published on 6 April 2020   FIRST SECTION Applications nos. 42520/17 and 50129/17 Angele SHAPKAROSKI against North Macedonia and Slavica KANEVCHE against North Macedonia lodged on 9 June 2017 and 10 July 2017 respectively SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern civil proceedings, where the applicants, as defendants, were ordered to pay the plaintiffs an amount of money, as their share in distributing the inheritance from a common ancestor. The plaintiffs sought, and the domestic courts accepted, that the applicants should pay them an amount allegedly exceeding the total value of the inheritance, without even taking into account any share of the inheritance that should remain with the applicants. In their judgments the domestic courts made no reference to this argument when raised by the applicants. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Having regard to the reasons provided by the domestic courts, did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of their civil rights, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? (see Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08 , § 64, ECHR 2015 and Anđelković v. Serbia , no.   1401/08, § 27, 9 April 2013)?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1? If so, was that interference lawful, and proportionate, as prescribed by Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 (see Buzescu v. Romania , no.   61302/00, § 98, 24 May 2005 and Beyeler v. Italy [GC], no. 33202/96, §§ 109, 122, ECHR   2000 ‑ I)?     APPENDIX   Application no 42520/17   No. Applicant’s Name Birth yeare Nationality Place of residence 1 Angele SHAPKAROSKI 1955 Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia Ohrid     Application no 50129/17   No. Applicant’s Name Birth yeare Nationality Place of residence 1 Slavica KANEVCHE 1960 Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia Ohrid