CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 mai 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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s4B163ECD { width:87.22%; border-collapse:collapse } .s81729C29 { width:8.26%; 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 } .sF7C6380 { width:22.94%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s9299A6E7 { width:8.26%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF9126CBC { width:22.94%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Communicated on 4 May 2020 Published on 25 May 2020   FIRST SECTION Application no. 73016/17 Emil ANGELESKI and Others against North Macedonia lodged on 5 October 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns restitution proceedings in which the applicants were awarded State bonds in compensation for the nationalised land in an amount calculated on the basis of the rate applicable to agricultural land ( земјоделско земјиште ). Their arguments that the land was construction land ( градежно земјиште ), which justified compensation pursuant to a higher rate, were dismissed at two instances of Administrative Courts. The courts held that the land had been agricultural at the time of nationalisation. The applicants submit two final domestic judgments predating the judgment in their case in which allegedly adjacent plots of land had been regarded by the domestic authorities as construction land and the compensation in those cases had accordingly been higher. They argue that a different tier for compensation should have been applied to their case, as prescribed in the Rulebook regulating the value and proceedings concerning restitution ( Уредба за начинот и постапката за утврдување на вредноста на имотот кој е предмет на денационализација ).     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of their civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, were sufficient reasons provided by the domestic authorities and administrative courts when they decided that the applicants’ plot had been agricultural land at the time of nationalisation? 2.     Did the applicants have a legitimate expectation to obtain compensation according to the rules applicable to construction land pursuant to the Rulebook regulating the value and proceedings concerning restitution? If so, was the refusal of the authorities to accommodate such a claim lawful and proportionate, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol   No. 1 to the Convention (see Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], no.   44912/98, § 35, ECHR 2004 ‑ IX; Stojanovski and Others v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no. 14174/09, § 61, 23 October 2014 and Gulmammadova v.   Azerbaijan , no. 38798/07, §§ 44-50, 22 April 2010)?   APPENDIX     No. Applicant’s Name Birth year Nationality Place of residence 1 Emil ANGELESKI 1941 Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia Skopje 2 Vasile BOGESKI 1952 Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia Skopje 3 Mihail HADJI-ANGELESKI 1950 Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia Skopje 4 Petar IVANOVSKI 1943 Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia Skopje