CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 mars 2015

.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 } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .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 }     Communicated on 16 March 2015   FIRST SECTION Application no. 25300/11 Kosta MARKOVSKI against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia lodged on 15 April 2011 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Kosta Markovski, is a Macedonian national, who was born in 1956 and lives in Skopje. He is represented before the Court by Mr   S. Gerovski, a lawyer practising in Skopje. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 2 January 2009 the applicant initiated labour proceedings before the Skopje Court of First Instance (“the first-instance court”) challenging his employer’s decision on his re-assignment. On 25 September 2009 the first-instance court accepted the applicant’s claim and annulled the decision on his re-assignment. On 22 October 2009 the employer lodged an appeal against the first-instance judgment. On 6 November 2009 (Friday) the appeal was served to the applicant who in turn, on 16 November 2009 (Monday) lodged with the first-instance court observations in reply to the employer’s appeal. On 16 October 2010 the Skopje Court of Appeal (“the second-instance court”) accepted the employer’s appeal, reversed the first-instance court’s judgment and dismissed the applicant’s claim finding that the decision on his re-assignment was lawful. The second-instance court established that “no observations in reply to the appeal were lodged” by the applicant ( одговор на жалбата не е доставен ). B.     Relevant domestic law Section 104 of the 2005 Civil Proceedings Act stipulates that when a time-limit expires on a Sunday, public holiday or other non-working day for the court, the time-limit would be extended until the first working day. Section 348 stipulates that the first-instance court shall communicate to the other party a timely, complete and admissible appeal. That party can in turn, within eight days from the service of the appeal, lodge observations in reply to the appeal. Belated observations are not to be rejected, but they are to be forwarded to the second-instance court for consideration, if possible. COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention about lack of adversariness because the second-instance court disregarded his observations submitted in reply to the employer’s appeal. QUESTION 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 applicant given the opportunity to effectively argue his case given the second-instance court’s finding that he had not lodged observations in reply to the opponent’s appeal (see Ruiz-Mateos v. Spain , 23   June 1993, § 63, Series A no. 262, Nideröst-Huber v. Switzerland , 18   February 1997, § 24, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997 ‑ I)?