CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 novembre 2022

.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 } .s1DE04B9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s943D4F93 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:21.8pt; text-align:justify } Published on 28 November 2022   SECOND SECTION Application no. 15313/19 Vera IVANOVA against North Macedonia lodged on 11 March 2019 communicated on 10 November 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the freezing of the applicant’s bank assets by an order ( КОК.ПП.бр.427/18 ) of 12 November 2018 issued by the Skopje Court of First Instance at the preliminary investigation stage, allegedly without her knowledge. Following a notification from the bank that her assets had been frozen, the applicant requested notification of the order in question from the court. On 28 November 2018 a pre-trial judge of the Skopje Court of First Instance, relying on the confidentiality of the preliminary investigation proceedings, rejected her request in an information note. The applicant complains under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that she had not been able to challenge the order of 12 November 2018 regarding the interference with her right to property, given the fact that she had not been notified of it and she had no knowledge of the reasons for the preliminary investigation proceedings as far as relevant for the freezing order.       QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have access to a court as required by Article 6 §   1 of the Convention, i.e. a clear, practical opportunity to challenge the Skopje First Instance Court’s order of 12   November 2018 which affected her property rights (see, mutatis mutandis , Berger-Krall and Others v.   Slovenia , no. 14717/04, § 321, 12   June 2014)? If not, did such limitation pursue a legitimate aim and was it necessary, in terms of Article   6 § 1 of the Convention? 2. Did the applicant have at her disposal an effective domestic remedy for her complaint under Article 1 of Protocol no. 1 to the Convention, as required by Article   13 of the Convention? 3. Did the applicant’s inability to appeal the freezing order of 12   November 2018 constitute a disproportionate interference with her right to the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions, guaranteed by Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?