Published on 13 October 2025
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 38219/23
Vidan SAVESKI
against North Macedonia
lodged on 9 October 2023
communicated on 25 September 2025
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the fairness and outcome of administrative proceedings in which the Employment Agency (“the Agency”) quashed proprio motu its previous decision granting the applicant an unemployment benefit.
In 1998 the Agency granted the applicant the benefit.
Having suspended it for the period from January 2005 until May 2008, in March 2009 the Agency re-established the applicant’s right to the benefit with effect from June 2008 (“the 2009 decision”). It appears that in the period in which the applicant received the unemployment benefit, the Agency paid on his behalf pension contributions to the Pension Fund.
In 2018 the Agency quashed proprio motu the 2009 decision. It established that in the period from December 1974 to October 2016 the applicant had been a founding member of the agricultural cooperative in which he had worked until 1998 when he had been dismissed. It referred to legal provisions under which a person who established a company or another legal entity was not entitled to receive an unemployment benefit. The Agency further ordered the applicant to return the sums received as unemployment benefit between July 1998 and December 2013 and that the pension contributions paid to the Pension Fund in respect of the applicant be retrieved.
After a remittal, the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy (“the Ministry”) confirmed the 2018 decision, finding on the basis of a notification of the Central Registry obtained in 2021 (“the 2021 notification”) that the applicant had been a founding member of the cooperative between September 2006 and October 2016. The administrative courts confirmed that decision at two levels, dismissing the applicant’s arguments that he had been unaware that he had been considered a founding member of the cooperative.
The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that the 2021 notification was never communicated to him and that the Ministry confirmed the 2018 decision, although the 2021 notification indicated a period, in which the applicant had been a founding member of the cooperative, that was different to the period established in the 2018 decision. Under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 the applicant complains that he was not aware that he was considered to be a founding member of the cooperative, and that his retirement pension decreased as a result of the quashing of the 2009 decision and the retrieval of the contributions paid on his behalf to the Pension Fund.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular:
(a) was the principle of equality of arms and adversarial hearing respected in the proceedings in question, in view of the applicant’s allegations that he was not provided with an opportunity to have knowledge of and comment on the 2021 notification (see Naumoski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 25248/05, §§ 25 et seq., 27 November 2012; and Janáček v. the Czech Republic, no. 9634/17, §§ 46-55, 2 February 2023)?
(b) were the Ministry’s decision and the subsequent judgments of the administrative courts, confirming the 2018 decision, 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, §§ 42-45, 2 April 2015) in view of their finding concerning the period in which the applicant had been a founding member of the cooperative?
2. Did the unemployment benefit granted to the applicant in 1998 and subsequently re-established constitute “possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see, for example, Béláné Nagy v. Hungary [GC], no. 53080/13, §§ 82-84, 13 December 2016; Čakarević v. Croatia, no. 48921/13, §§ 54-65, 26 April 2018 and Romeva v. North Macedonia, no. 32141/10, §§ 38-44, 12 December 2019)? If so, has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of his possession (see, for example, Čakarević, cited above, §§ 71-91; Romeva, cited above, §§ 54-78; and Casarin v. Italy, no. 4893/13, §§ 56-73, 11 February 2021)?