Published on 25 August 2025
SECOND SECTION
Applications nos. 11760/21 and 11804/21
ALUMIL DOO EXPORT-IMPORT SKOPJE against North Macedonia
lodged on 18 February 2021 and 18 February 2021 respectively
communicated on 8 August 2025
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applications concern two sets of expropriation proceedings in which the State (the city of Skopje) confiscated two plots of land owned by the applicant company for building a boulevard.
In the domestic proceedings, the applicant company did not contest the expropriation itself but it disputed the amount of the compensation awarded to it. In both sets of proceedings, court-appointed experts established that the applicant company should be awarded 3,000 Macedonian denars ((MKD), approximately 50 euros (EUR)) per square metre of land, according to the list of the market value of construction and agricultural land approved by the city of Skopje. The applicant company submitted to the domestic courts that the value of the land in the area where its plots were located was MKD 7,638 (approximately EUR 125) per square metre, as determined by experts commissioned by the applicant company. In addition, it submitted that the amount of the property tax which it paid every year and which was based on the value of the plots, as determined by the city, was also higher than MKD 3,000 per square metre. It further referred to a court decision in another case, where the value of the square metre of land, situated near its plots and expropriated for constructing the same boulevard, had been set three times higher than the amount awarded to the applicant company. However, the domestic courts determined the amount of compensation on the basis of the opinion of the court-appointed experts, that is MKD 510,000 and 912,000 (approximately EUR 8,300 and 14,800 respectively) for the plots measuring, respectively, 170 and 304 square metres. They did not address the material submitted by the applicant company. The final decisions in the domestic proceedings were taken on 1 and 2 July 2020, and it appears that they were served on the applicant company’s representative on 19 August 2020.
The applicant company complains, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, that the compensation awarded for the expropriation of its land was insufficient. It contends that the State failed to strike a fair balance between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of its property rights.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
Has there been a violation of the applicant company’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of its possessions under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention on account of the amount of the compensation awarded to it for the expropriation of its land? In particular:
(a) Was the compensation reasonably related to the value of the expropriated land at the time of the expropriation (see Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, §§ 93-95 and 100, ECHR 2006-V, and Kostov and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 66581/12 and 25054/15, §§ 72-83 and 91-92, 14 May 2020)?
(b) Did the expropriation proceedings viewed as a whole afford the applicant company a reasonable opportunity for putting its case to the competent authorities with a view to establishing a fair balance between the conflicting interests at stake (see Jokela v. Finland, no. 28856/95, §§ 53-55, ECHR 2002-IV and Petar Matas v. Croatia, no. 40581/12, §§ 44, 46-48, 4 October 2016)? The Court refers, in particular, to the applicant company’s argument that the domestic courts failed to duly consider the material which it submitted with regard to the value of the land.