CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 septembre 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }     Communicated on 8 September 2014   FIRST SECTION Application no. 49387/11 Pero KRŽEVSKI against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia lodged on 12 July 2011 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Pero Krževski, is a Macedonian national, who was born in 1936 and lives in Skopje. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. In 2000 the applicant lodged a civil action against his employer claiming payment of salary supplements. By judgments of 3 March and 22   October   2003, the Skopje Court of First Instance and the Appeal Court, respectively, rejected the applicant’s claim, considering it as having been withdrawn. In 2005 the applicant applied to the first-instance court seeking that it resume the proceedings. On 19 December 2005 the first-instance court found that he had not sufficiently specified his claim and accordingly rejected it as incomplete. This decision was confirmed on appeal by the Skopje Court of Appeal on 15 June 2006. The applicant challenged these decisions by lodging an appeal on points of law. By a decision of 30 January 2008, the Supreme Court accepted the applicant’s appeal, quashed the lower courts’ decisions and remitted the case for fresh examination. It found that the applicant’s claim was sufficiently specified and that the courts were required to examine it on the merits. By decisions of 7 November 2008 and 21 May 2009, the first-instance court and the Appeal Court, respectively, dismissed the applicant’s claim on the merits. On 21 July 2009 the applicant challenged these decisions by means of an appeal on points of law. By a decision of 17 February 2011, the Supreme Court rejected the appeal as inadmissible ratione valoris , namely it found that the value claim was below the statutory threshold for lodging an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court. According to the applicant, this decision had been notified to him on 30 March 2011. COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that the Supreme Court wrongly rejected his appeal as inadmissible ratione valoris notwithstanding its prior decision in the same proceedings accepting such a jurisdiction.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 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, was the Supreme Court’s decision of 17 February 2011 declaring the applicant’s appeal on points of law ( ревизија ) inadmissible ratione valoris in breach of his right of access to a court and/or the principle of legal certainty having regard to that court’s previous decision of 30   January 2008, in which it accepted such a jurisdiction?