Case of European Court of Human Rights, February 07, 2019 (case STOJANOVSKI AND OTHERS v. \)

Resolution Date:February 07, 2019

Pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)




(Application no. 14174/09)


(Just satisfaction)


7 February 2019

This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Stojanovski and Others v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia,

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:

Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos, President,Krzysztof Wojtyczek,Armen Harutyunyan,Pauliine Koskelo,Tim Eicke,Jovan Ilievski,Gilberto Felici, judges,and Renata Degener, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 15 January 2019,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:


  1. The case originated in an application (no. 14174/09) against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by three Macedonian nationals, Mr Krume Stojanovski, Mr Branislav Janevski and Mrs Silvana Janevska (“the applicants”), on 27 February 2009.

  2. In a judgment delivered on 30 September 2014 (“the principal judgment”), the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in that the authorities had dismissed (with a final judgment of 2008) the applicants’ claim for restoration of a plot of land (plot no. 2943/6 with a surface area of 1,449 sq. m., confiscated from their late predecessor) into their possession in breach of the principle of lawfulness (see Stojanovski and Others v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 14174/09, § 60, 23 October 2014).

  3. Under Article 41 of the Convention the applicants sought compensation of both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. As regards the pecuniary damage, the applicants claimed 300,000 euros (EUR) jointly, which according to them corresponded to the then market value of the land. In support of that claim, they referred to two contracts of sale of July 2010 and September 2011 signed by private parties, according to which two plots of land in the same area as the land in question (non-building and building land) had been sold at the price of EUR 250 and EUR 208.33 per sq. m. respectively. Their claim was based on the lowest market price, notwithstanding the fact that the selling price of State-owned land in the same area intended for commercial and business purposes, as determined in the Decree concerning the price of State-owned building land offered for sale or lease (“the 2010 Decree”, Official Gazette no. 113/2010), was EUR 700 per sq. m. This latter price concerned direct sale (непосредна спогодба) of State-owned building land and as stated by the applicants, was variable and determined by the Government. The Government contested those claims as unsubstantiated and excessive. They further referred to the possibility of reopening the restitution proceedings on the basis of a judgment of the Court.

  4. Since the question of the application of Article 41 of the Convention as regards pecuniary damage was not ready for decision, the Court reserved it and invited the Government and the applicants to submit, within three months from the date on which the judgment became final, their written observations on that issue and, in particular, to notify the Court of any agreement that they might reach (see the principal judgment, § 69...

To continue reading