CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 15 avril 2024

.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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 29 April 2024   SECOND SECTION Application no. 19088/21 GEO SOLAR DOOEL DELCHEVO against North Macedonia lodged on 30 March 2021 communicated on 15 April 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns an incentive scheme prescribing a preferential feed-in tariff for production of solar energy. On 11 July 2012 the applicant company lodged a request to the Energy Regulatory Commission to grant it a provisional status of a preferential solar-energy producer, which would entitle it to a preferential feed-in tariff for the produced energy. Despite the thirty-day deadline in the Energy Act, the applicant company was granted the provisional status only on 14 June 2013. The Commission subsequently determined for the applicant company a feed-in tariff pursuant to the relevant decree in force since 18 April 2013, which was much lower than the tariff applicable before 18 April 2013. The second-instance commission and the administrative courts dismissed the applicant company’s challenge against the tariff determined for it, as under the Energy Act the applicable tariff depended on the moment when the provisional status of a preferential energy producer was granted. On 16 April 2013 (two days before the lower feed-in tariff became applicable) the Commission granted the provisional status of preferential energy producers to eight other companies. Under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention the applicant company complains of an unlawful and disproportionate interference with its possessions.       QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Is Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention applicable to the circumstances of the present case? In particular, having regard to the relevant domestic law and practice, did the applicant company have a legitimate expectation to have the higher preferential feed-in tariff applicable before 18   April 2013 fixed for it (see, among many others, Béláné Nagy v. Hungary [GC], no. 53080/13, §§ 73-9, 13 December 2016; and Dănoiu and Others v.   Romania , nos. 54780/15 and 2 others, §§ 52-3, 25   January 2022)? If so, has there been an interference with the applicant company’s peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol   No. 1 (see, for example, Kamoy Radyo Televizyon Yayıncılık ve Organizasyon A.Ş. v. Turkey , no. 19965/06, § 40, 16 April 2019; and, mutatis mutandis , Könyv-Tár Kft and Others v. Hungary , no. 21623/13, §§   42-3, 16   October 2018)? Was that interference lawful (see, mutatis mutandis , Stojanovski and Others v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no.   14174/09, §§ 46-60, 23 October 2014) and proportionate (see   Salento Energy S.r.l. and Nuovo Sole S.r.l. v. Italy (dec.), nos. 20445/15 and   59246/17, §§ 34-42, 9 January 2024; and, mutatis mutandis , Văleanu and Others v. Romania , nos. 59012/17 and 27 others, § 247, 8 November 2022)?