CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 15 octobre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 3 November 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 17752/21 Goran ANGELOVSKI against North Macedonia lodged on 23 March 2021 communicated on 15 October 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns proceedings in which the applicant sought compensation for the deterioration of his property that had been seized by the police. On 7 April 2003 the police seized a vehicle which the applicant had bought in October 2002, on the grounds that it had allegedly been reported by Interpol as stolen. It was placed in a designated terminal of the Ministry of the Interior and the applicant was issued a receipt of seizure by the police. The vehicle was returned to him on 28 May 2012. No charges were brought against him. On 27 May 2015 the applicant lodged a compensation claim against the Ministry of the Interior seeking damage. He contended that he had sustained pecuniary loss due to the depreciation of the vehicle, as it had not been stored properly, and the inability to use it during its allegedly unlawful temporary seizure. He submitted a damage appraisal report which had established the amount of sustained damage taking into account the price of similar functional vehicles on the day when the vehicle had been returned to him, with calculated amortisation until that day. After one remittal, the second-instance court found that the temporary seizure had been lawful and that it had been based on a reasonable suspicion that the vehicle had been stolen. By a final decision dated 1 September 2020, the Supreme Court confirmed the findings of the second-instance court. The decision was notified to the applicant’s lawyer on 5 October 2020. Under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicant complains that he was unlawfully deprived of his possession without being awarded compensation. He also complains, relying on Article 6 of the Convention, about the lack of reasoning in the domestic courts’ decisions. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, on account of the seizure of his vehicle? In particular:   (a)     Was the seizure of the vehicle for a period of nine years on the basis of the receipt of seizure by the police lawful, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Lekić v. Slovenia [GC], no. 36480/07, §§ 94-95, 11   December 2018)?   (b)     Did the seizure strike a fair balance between the general interest and the applicant’s property rights (see Stołkowski v.   Poland , no. 58795/15, §§   52-57, 21 December 2021, and Dabić v. Croatia , no. 49001/14, § 55, 18   March 2021)?   (c)     Did the proceedings before the domestic courts afford the applicant a reasonable opportunity of putting his case to the competent authorities for the purpose of effectively challenging the seizure of his property (see G.I.E.M.   S.r.l. and Others v. Italy [GC], nos.   1828/06 and 2 others, §   302, 28   June 2018)? In particular, did the domestic courts duly address the applicant’s submissions relating to his claim for compensation in respect of pecuniary damage allegedly sustained as a result of the depreciation of the value of his vehicle?