LEXI - AI Legal Assistant
Sorry, there was an error communicating with our API.
Try refreshing the page, and if the error persists, please try again in a few minutes.
KUZMANOVSKA AND OTHERS v. NORTH MACEDONIA
Doc ref: 25967/18 • ECHR ID: 001-215669
Document date: January 18, 2022
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 6
KUZMANOVSKA AND OTHERS v. NORTH MACEDONIA
Doc ref: 25967/18 • ECHR ID: 001-215669
Document date: January 18, 2022
Cited paragraphs only
Published on 7 February 2022
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 25967/18 Kiraca KUZMANOVSKA and Others against North Macedonia lodged on 28 May 2018 communicated on 18 January 2022
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns restitution proceedings, in which the relevant institutions and two levels of administrative courts dismissed the applicants’ claim to be restored with the goods confiscated from their predecessors (4,157 sheep and 85 horses), for which they had submitted evidence in the domestic proceedings, or to be given the equivalent thereof. The relevant bodies found that the evidence submitted was not relevant to the goods that were sought with the restitution request.
The applicants complain under Article 6 about the arbitrariness of the domestic courts’ judgments and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the violation of their property rights in the restitution proceedings.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of their civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, were the administrative courts’ judgments adopted in the restitution proceedings arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable (see Khamidov v. Russia , no. 72118/01, § 170, 15 November 2007; Anđelković v. Serbia , no. 1401/08, § 24, 9 April 2013; and Pavlović and Others v. Croatia , no. 13274/11, § 45, 2 April 2015)?
2. Can the applicants’ claim for the goods, confiscated by their predecessors, to be restored to them, be regarded as "assets" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see Kopecky v. Slovakia [GC], no. 44912/98, §§ 49 and 52, ECHR 2004-IX, and Lelas v. Croatia , no. 55555/08, §§ 56-57, 20 May 2010)? If so, has the failure of the domestic authorities to restore the goods to them amounted to an interference with the applicants’ rights under this Article? If so, was such interference lawful and justified, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?
APPENDIX
List of applicants
No.
Applicant’s Name
Year of birth/registration
Nationality
Place of residence
1.Kiraca KUZMANOVSKA
1959Macedonians/citizens of the Republic of North Macedonia
Skopje
2.Tatjana DIMKOVSKA
1967Kumanavo
3.Marija MIHAJLOVA
1938Shtip
4.Marusha MIHAJLOVA
1952Shtip
5.Natasha MILEVA
1972Skopje
6.Aleksandar NAKOV
1978Skopje
7.Kiraca NAKOVA
1950Shtip
8.Sultana NAKOVA
1926Skopje
9.Nikolcho NIKOLOV
1959Skopje
10.Trajanka NIKOLOVA
1938Shtip
11.Irena NIKOLOVSKA
1977Skopje
12.Mirjana NIKOLOVSKA
1947Skopje
13.Sonja PETKOVA
1970Skopje
14.Mara SHTERIEVSKA
1963Sveti Nikole
15.Aco SHTERJOV
1983Skopje
16.Micho SHTERJOV
1968Shtip
17.Ica TASHKOVA
1937Pehchevo
© European Union,
https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2025
