Lexploria - Legal research enhanced by smart algorithms
Lexploria beta Legal research enhanced by smart algorithms
Menu
Browsing history:

BLAZHESKI AND OTHERS v. NORTH MACEDONIA

Doc ref: 56741/18 • ECHR ID: 001-209410

Document date: March 23, 2021

  • Inbound citations: 0
  • Cited paragraphs: 0
  • Outbound citations: 1

BLAZHESKI AND OTHERS v. NORTH MACEDONIA

Doc ref: 56741/18 • ECHR ID: 001-209410

Document date: March 23, 2021

Cited paragraphs only

Published on 12 April 2021

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 56741/18 Robert BLAZHESKI and Others against North Macedonia lodged on 26 November 2018 communicated on 23 March 2021

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

With a judgment of 23 May 2012 rendered in criminal proceedings in which third parties were convicted of fraud or/and abuse of office in respect of a sale of shares on the stock exchange, the Shtip Court of Appeal, acting as a court of first instance in the matter, confiscated the profit ( equivalent to approximately 1,641.000 euros (EUR)) the applicants had acquired from the sales transaction, including the money used for the purchase of the shares in question (equivalent to approximately EUR 621,000) . The court found that the confiscated amount was a result of the third parties ’ criminal activities, who, acting as trustees, had sold the shares to the applicants at a lower price than authorised and subsequently the applicants had obtained profit by reselling those shares. The court made no findings concerning the applicants ’ awareness of the third parties ’ criminal activities. In proceedings upon a legality review request submitted by the State public prosecutor in respect of all applicants, on 1 November 2017 the plenary of the Supreme Court confirmed the earlier judgments and the findings about the criminal origin of the confiscated money. This judgment was served on the applicants on 20 June and 9 July 2018.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been an interference with the applicants ’ peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, stemming from the confiscation of their money used for the purchase of the shares in question ?

2. If so, was that interference in accordance with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? In particular, was it necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest? Finally, did it impose an excessive individual burden on the applicants (compare Balsamo v. San Marino , nos. 20319/17 and 21414/17, 8 October 2019)?

APPENDIX

No.

Applicant ’ s Name

Birth year

Nationality

Place of residence

1 .

Robert BLAZHESKI

1966Macedonian/ citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia

Skopje

2 .

Krste BLAZHESKI

1963Struga

3 .

Gerasim VANCHEV

1962Skopje

© European Union, https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2025

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant

Active Products: EUCJ + ECHR Data Package + Citation Analytics • Documents in DB: 400211 • Paragraphs parsed: 44892118 • Citations processed 3448707