CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 26 novembre 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 } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .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 } .s944BDE53 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s25B97BCD { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #808080; border-collapse:collapse } .sF5C9E8B1 { height:46.3pt } .sD1CDDC62 { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .s2490CDBC { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .s7E985A6E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:8pt } .s26ADB50A { border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sFD306575 { height:35.55pt } .s2F4AF114 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6CF83D49 { margin-left:11.67pt; padding-left:6.18pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold } .s898DAE93 { border:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC4A995C6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.45pt; font-size:8pt } .sB71F2881 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sBCA334AF { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7CB6920E { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s62945D10 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 26 November 2014   FIRST SECTION Application no. 28493/11 Blaže LAZEV against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and 4 other applications (see list appended) The applicants are Macedonian nationals and live in Štip. They are represented before the Court by Ms S. Suleva, a lawyer practising in Štip. A list of applicants with their personal details is available in the appendix. A.     The circumstances of the cases The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. The applicants are redundant workers ( стечајни работници ) from “Makedonka” a former State-owned bankrupted factory, which was transformed and succeeded by few companies (“employers”). In 2008 the Special Allowance for Redundant Workers of Predominantly State-Owned Companies Act (“the Act) was adopted. The Act foresees that the redundant unemployed workers of the predominantly State-owned companies are entitled to a special monthly allowance (“the special allowance”). The Act further specifies that the Government shall compose a List of predominantly State-owned companies (“the List”) and that it shall be communicated to the Employment Office within 15 days after the Act’s entry into force. In July and August 2008, relying on the Act, the applicants requested the Employment Office in Štip to grant them the special allowance. Their requests were dismissed by the Employment Office because the applicants’ employers had not been State-owned companies. The Ministry of Labour and Social Policy dismissed the applicants’ appeals reiterating the finding of the Employment Office. The applicants lodged administrative actions before the Administrative Court. Through various documents they tried to substantiate that their employers, having all emerged upon the transformation of “Makedonka”, had been State-owned companies. They had been therefore entitled to obtain the special allowance, as had been the case with their former colleagues from other companies that had also emerged from “Makedonka” and who had already been granted the special allowance. The Administrative Court dismissed the applicants’ administrative actions finding that the applicants’ employers had not been included in the List. The applicants appealed claiming inter alia that the List had never been communicated to them and that this particular evidence was simply invoked by the Administrative Court without providing any further details about it. The Supreme Court and the High Administrative Court (which was in mean time established and became competent to decide the appeals against the decisions of the Administrative Court), on the dates set out in the appendix, dismissed the appeals finding that the Administrative Court had correctly established that the applicants’ employers had not been included in the List and that consequently, the applicants had not been entitled to the special allowance claimed. COMPLAINT The applicants complain under Article 6 of the Convention that they had no access to the List and that they therefore could not have effectively argued their cases. QUESTION to the parties Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of their civil rights, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the principle of equality of arms respected in the impugned administrative proceedings, namely, were the applicants given the opportunity to have knowledge of and comment on the List (see Komanický v. Slovakia , no. 32106/96, § 50, 4 June 2002)? APPENDIX No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant’s name, date of birth   Case-file number and date of the final decision of the High Administrative/ Supreme Court   28493/11 30/04/2011 Blaže LAZEV 20/03/1949   Ужп.бр. 425/2010 of 27/09/2010   (received by the applicant on 04/11/2010)     65661/12 08/10/2012 Nikola POLAZAROV 15/09/1953   Уж.бр. 679/2012 of 09/04/2012   74018/12 12/11/2012 Lazo TASEVSKI 05/05/1952   Уж.бр. 694/2012 of 09/04/2012   (received by the applicant on 15/05/2012)     5916/13 15/01/2013 Simeon PIKOV 04/10/1952   Уж.бр. 846/2012 of 03/07/2012   7198/13 18/01/2013 Ljupčo MLADENOV 17/09/1953   Уж.бр. 852/2012 of 18/10/2012