CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 16 novembre 2000

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s20FDDAE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sCA1147F8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .sBB5E682E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s147369FC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s24C63AC { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:31.75pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-20.15pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s8750BF75 { width:8.15pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s4B773175 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s2E302ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:14pt } .s377C1984 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA918FEC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .sFDE7661F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s6D186F70 { width:22.36pt; display:inline-block } .sB5A7C13C { width:168.75pt; display:inline-block } .sC032F72E { width:10.19pt; display:inline-block } .s8EFC8F8 { width:32.36pt; display:inline-block } .s9FF4C6B8 { width:198.41pt; display:inline-block } SECOND SECTION PARTIAL DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 58185/00 by Sofka JANEVA against the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia   The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 16   November 2000 as a Chamber composed of   Mr   C.L. Rozakis , President ,   Mr   A.B. Baka ,   Mr   B. Conforti ,   Mr   P. Lorenzen ,   Mrs   M. Tsatsa-Nikolovska ,   Mr   E. Levits ,   Mr   A. Kovler , judges , and   Mrs   E. Fribergh , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application introduced on 9 February 2000 and registered on 19 June 2000, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant is a Macedonian national who lives in Štip (the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia). She is represented before the Court by Mr Trajče Torov, a lawyer practising in Štip. A.   The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 3 October 1991, the applicant’s husband was dismissed from his job as chief-salesman in a private shop because of breach of professional duties and of disciplinary regulations. He was accused of not having observed the general manager’s instruction prohibiting sale on credit, thereby causing large material damage to the company. On an unspecified date criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant’s husband for having misappropriated company funds. On an unspecified date they were terminated on the ground that no criminal offence had been committed. On 30 December 1991, the applicant’s husband lodged an appeal against the decision for his dismissal with the Štip Labour Court alleging errors of fact. On an unspecified date, following the abolition of the labour courts, the applicant’s husband’s case was transmitted to the Štip Municipal Court and assigned to a new panel of judges. The court held nine hearings in 1992 and 1993. In its judgment of 26 January 1993, the court dismissed the appeal holding that the applicant’s husband had been lawfully dismissed. On 10 June 1993, the Štip County Court granted the applicant’s husband’s subsequent appeal and referred the case back to the Štip Municipal Court. It instructed the lower court to examine the investigation file concerning the charges against the applicant’s husband for having misappropriated company funds, to examine if he was familiar with the relevant instruction of the general manager and to order preparation of a financial report, inter alia, in respect of the alleged deficit on the shop’s balance sheet. On 24 March 1994, the Štip Municipal Court quashed the order for the applicant’s husband’s dismissal on the grounds that he was only following instructions from his superiors and that the balance sheet of the shop where the applicant’s husband used to work did not show any deficit. No financial report was ordered or examined by the court. The former employer of the applicant’s husband lodged an appeal with the Štip County Court. On 28 December 1994, the court sitting in camera, quashed the lower court’s judgment and referred the case back for re ‑ examination on the ground that the applicant’s husband’s lawyer had not been properly empowered. It instructed the lower court to order preparation of a financial report and to hear some additional witnesses. In the Štip Municipal Court the applicant’s husband’s case was assigned to a new panel of judges. Thirteen hearings were held between 1995 and 1997. In the meanwhile, on an unspecified date the applicant’s husband died. The applicant, being his heir, continued the labour proceedings. On 16 June 1997, after having examined the relevant documents and the financial report prepared by two experts, according to which the shop where the applicant’s husband used to work did not show any deficit, the Štip Municipal Court found that the applicant’s husband was unlawfully dismissed from work. Following the enactment of the Law on the Courts, the Štip County Court became the Štip Appellate Court. On the company’s appeal, on 21 January 1998, the Štip Appellate Court quashed the first instance court’s decision holding that the court had assessed the facts wrongly. It referred the case back for re-examination and instructed the Štip Municipal Court to order an additional financial report which would cover all the issues raised in the case and would take into account the fact that in the meanwhile there had been a revalorization of the national currency. The Štip Municipal Court held hearings on 16 March, 7 and 28 May, 25   June, 28 September and 16 November 1998. No hearings were held since 16   November 1998. The proceedings are still pending before the Štip Municipal Court. B.   Relevant domestic law Section 93 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that a properly empowered legal representative may continue the proceedings in the case of death of the party that he represents before the court unless his power of attorney has been revoked by the legal heirs of the deceased. Sections 197 §   1 and 200 of the Code of Civil Procedure provide that the civil proceedings shall be stayed if the deceased party does not have a legal representative. If the proceedings were stayed, the court shall continue the proceedings on request of, inter alia, legal heirs of the deceased person.   COMPLAINTS   The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the civil proceedings to which her deceased husband was a party were excessively lengthy. In particular, the proceedings have lasted for eight years and are still continuing, the case was assigned to three different trial judges and the hearings were not scheduled promptly. She further complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the civil proceedings were unfair.   THE LAW   1.     The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the civil proceedings to which her deceased husband was a party were unfair. The Court recalls that a complaint under Article 6 of the Convention concerning the alleged unfairness of civil proceedings would in principle be premature when these proceedings are still pending. An applicant cannot claim to be a victim, within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention, of a violation of his or her right to a fair trial in respect of proceedings which have not been concluded (application no. 31195/96, decision of 27 February 1997, DR. 88, p. 169). The Court notes that in the instant case, the proceedings are still pending before the Štip Municipal Court. It follows that the applicant cannot, at this stage, claim to be a victim of the alleged violations of his right under Article 6 to a fair trial and that, therefore, this part of the application is inadmissible under Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4. 2.     The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the civil proceedings were excessively lengthy. The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case-file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 3 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, DECIDES TO ADJOURN the examination of the applicant’s complaint that the civil proceedings were excessively lengthy. DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application.         Erik Fribergh   Christos Rozakis     Registrar   President