Communicated on 25 August 2016

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 19017/16 Gjilizare LJATIFI against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia lodged on 1 April 2016

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Ms Gjilizare Ljatifi , is a Serbian national of Roma ethnicity, who was born in Kosovo [1] in 1991 and lives in Skopje. She is represented before the Court by Mr A. Godžo , a lawyer practising in Ohrid .

The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

In 1999 the applicant (eight-year old at the time) and her family (parents and three siblings) fled Kosovo and settled in the respondent State, where she lives ever since. In 2005 she was granted asylum and residence permit. She entered in a common-law partnership with a Macedonian national with whom they have three minor children (the latter also have Macedonian nationality). Her residence permit was extended each year until 3 February 2014 when the Asylum Department within the Ministry of the Interior terminated her asylum since “(she) ( wa ) s a risk to (national) security.” She was ordered to leave the territory of the respondent State within twenty days after the order would become final.

The applicant challenged the expulsion order as arbitrary. In this connection she argued that there had been no evidence that her presence in the respondent State had represented a threat to national security. Furthermore, she had not been given the opportunity to challenge any such evidence.

On 3 July 2014 the Administrative Court dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal and confirmed the expulsion order. It held that the relevant department of the Ministry ex officio had obtained a classified written note ( службена белешка со назнака за доверлив документ ) from the national intelligence service that she had represented a threat to national security. It ruled accordingly that the impugned proceedings had been lawful.

The applicant appealed against this decision before the Higher Administrative Court reiterating the complaints raised before. She further alleged that the wording used by the Administrative Court implied that there had been some documents on which the expulsion order had been based. However, she had not been given the opportunity to have knowledge of and to comment on that evidence.

With a decision of 1 July 2015, served on the applicant on 6 October 2015, the Higher Administrative Court dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal and upheld the expulsion order. The relevant part of the decision reads as follows:

“... The Asylum Department decided on the basis of ... classified information obtained from a relevant body (which) proves indisputably that her presence in (the respondent State) represents a threat to its security.

The Higher Administrative Court examined the (applicant ’ s) allegations ... that information provided by the relevant body within the Ministry of the Interior had not been forwarded to her and her representative, but it considers them irrelevant ...”

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that no evidence in support of the expulsion order was presented to her so that she could file any comments or observations. She also alleged that the impugned decision contained no reasons .

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Did the decision to expel the applicant – an alien who was lawfully resident in the territory of the respondent State – comply with the procedural requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 7?

2. Did the applicant have at her disposal an effective domestic remedy for her complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 , as required by Article 13 of the Convention?

[1] All reference to Kosovo, whether to the territory, institutions or population, in this text shall be understood in full compliance with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 and without prejudice to the status of Kosovo.