Communicated on 6 July 2015

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 26635/12 ALEKSANDRIJA A against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia lodged on 26 April 2012

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Aleksandrija A DOOEL , is a company registered in Skopje . It is represented before the Court by Mr T. Menkinoski , a lawyer practising in Skopje .

The circumstances of the case

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

On 13 August 2002 the applicant bought a restaurant, which was registered as a temporary building.

On 2 October 2002 it concluded a contract with the respondent State for a short-term lease (“the lease contract”, договор за краткорочен закуп ) of the plot of land on which the restaurant was situated. The contract was to be valid between 1 October 2002 and 1 October 2007. Under Article 8 of the contract, it could be terminated ( може да се раскине ) if the urban plan in respect of the plot was implemented ( реализација на урбанистички план ). In that case, the applicant was obliged to remove the restaurant from the plot within five days from the termination of the contract.

In 2003 the applicant renovated the restaurant, investing 31,081,909 Macedonian denars (MKD).

On 12 December 2003 the State sold the plot of land to another company.

On 19 December 2003 the Ministry of Transport and Communications ordered the applicant to demolish the restaurant. On 30 March 2004 it adopted a conclusion allowing for the enforcement of the latter decision. With two separate judgments of 27 April 2005, the Supreme Court finally confirmed the decision and the conclusion.

On an unspecified date the restaurant was demolished.

On 10 April 2007 the applicant lodged a compensation claim against the respondent State for the investments made for renovation of the restaurant and for the loss of profit which would have been obtained until the expiration of the lease contract.

On 26 March 2009 the Skopje Court of First Instance dismissed the applicant ’ s claim. It found that the demolition had been lawful, as it had been established by the Supreme Court, and therefore there was no responsibility of the State for the damages suffered by the applicant.

The applicant appealed arguing that the court had not admitted any evidence as to whether the lease contract had been terminated and whether the implementation of the urban plan had begun.

On 2 December 2009 the Skopje Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. It found that the contract had been concluded under a condition (the implementation of the urban plan) the fulfilment of which would terminate the contract ( раскинлив услов ) . The authorities had begun with the implementation of the urban plan. There was no causal link between the State authorities ’ actions and the damages sustained by the applicant.

In his appeal on points of law, the applicant again argued that the courts should have established when the lease contract had been terminated and when the urban plan had been implemented. They had failed to admit any evidence to that end.

On 14 September 2011 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on points of law, finding that the applicant had been obliged to demolish the restaurant when the urban plan had been implemented.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains that the domestic authorities sold the plot and demolished the restaurant despite the lease contract . It invokes Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention .

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Did the applicant ’ s claim in the domestic proceedings fall within the ambit of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? If so, was there an interference with the applicant ’ s right to peaceful enjoyment of its possessions contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?