Communicated on 23 March 2018
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 2213/15
Isak AJRULI against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
and 4 other applications
(see list appended)
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applications concern lustration proceedings in which the Fact Verification Commission (“the Commission”), on the basis of documentary evidence that it had obtained on its own motion, established that the applicants had collaborated with the former regime’s security forces. Those findings, which were immediately published on the Commission’s website before being confirmed at two levels of administrative court, had the resulting effect of declaring the applicants unfit to apply or perform public office. The applicants did not participate in the proceedings before the Commission. Their requests for an oral hearing before the Administrative Courts were to no avail. The courts did not adduce any evidence (written material, witnesses and experts) that some applicants proposed to contest the findings of fact. They also allegedly failed to provide a more substantial explanation as to whether the applicants’ alleged collaboration with the security bodies of the communist era had satisfied the qualitative criteria specified in the 2012 Lustration Act.
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,
(a) did they have the right effectively to participate in the impugned proceedings? In this context, were the applicants in applications nos. 8082/15; 17607/15 and 40411/15 given the opportunity to present evidence in their favour and to obtain the attendance of witnesses on their behalf, as required by this Article?
(b) Has there been an oral hearing in the present cases, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
(c) Did the decisions in the applicants’ cases contain sufficient reasons, as required under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Karajanov v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 2229/15, §§ 55-63, 6 April 2017)?
2. Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to respect for their private life, within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention? In particular,
(a) Was the publication of the Commission’s decisions on its web site before they became final compatible with the requirements of this Article (applications nos. 2213/15; 17607/15; 32576/15 and 40411/15) (see ibid., §§ 70-77)?
(b) Was the domestic authorities’ analysis in applications nos. 8082/15 and 32576/15 sufficiently thorough to satisfy the test of “necessity in a democratic society” inherent in this Article? In the given circumstances, was the interference with these applicants’ right to respect for their private life justified within the meaning of this Article (see Ivanovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 29908/11, §§ 176-188, 21 January 2016)?
3. Did the applicants Mr H. Sejfedin and Mr N. Kosturski (applications nos. 8082/15 and 40411/15) have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Articles 6 and 8, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
APPENDIX
No.
Application no.
Lodged on
Applicant
Date of birth
Place of residence
Represented by
2213/15
15/12/2014
Isak AJRULI
16/03/1954
Tetovo
Goran STOEV
8082/15
06/02/2015
Sejfedin HARUNI
26/01/1944
Gradec, Gostivar
Besim REDJEPI
17607/15
07/04/2015
Vladimir MILCHIN
29/04/1947
Skopje
Ljubomir MIHAJLOVSKI
32576/15
29/06/2015
Kiril PSALTIROV
11/10/1941
Skopje
Misho ZHIVKOVSKI
40411/15
07/08/2015
Nikola KOSTURSKI
06/03/1944
Bitola
Natasha NAJDENOVA LEVIKJ
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy