CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 juin 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 } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .sDD7CB8CD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:7pt }     Communicated on 10 June 2015   FIRST SECTION Application no. 14466/11 Ismet BAJRAMOVSKI against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia lodged on 25 February 2011 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Ismet Bajramovski, is a Macedonian national, who was born in 1955 and lives in Schötz, Switzerland. He is represented before the Court by Mr E. Glavinče, a lawyer practising in Bitola. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. The case concerns civil proceedings for recognition of a title to a house and a courtyard that the applicant initiated before the Kičevo Court of First Instance (“the first-instance court”), against Mr A.L. and Mr H.L. The former was a judge in the first-instance court at the time when the proceedings were initiated. On an unspecified date, the chairman of the panel that adjudicated the applicant’s case at first instance withdrew. The president of the first-instance court requested that the president of the Gostivar Court of Appeal (“the second-instance court”) assign another Court of First Instance to decide the case. There is no information in the case-file as to the outcome of those proceedings.   On 3 December 2008 the first-instance court dismissed the applicant’s claim. The applicant appealed. On an unspecified date, the applicant requested that the Supreme Court assign another second-instance court competent to decide the case instead of the appellate court. He argued that two judges of the first-instance court, former colleagues of Mr A.L., sat as judges in the Gostivar second-instance court and expressed doubts as to the impartiality of that court. On 5   March   2009 the Supreme Court dismissed the request finding that the reason put forward by the applicant was irrelevant and could not lead to assignment of another appellate court. On 6 July 2010 the second-instance court dismissed the applicant’s appeal and confirmed the first-instance judgment. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law, in which inter alia he referred to his request to the Supreme Court for assignment of another second-instance court, as well as to the withdrawal of the adjudicating judge of the first-instance court and its president’s request that a different court be appointed to take over the case. On 29 March 2012 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law without explicitly addressing the applicant’s concerns concerning the alleged lack of impartiality of the lower courts. COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention about the lack of impartiality of the first- and second-instance courts given that the applicant’s opponent was a judge in the first-instance court and that two judges of the first-instance court became judges of the second-instance court which decided the applicant’s appeal. He also complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. 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 of the Convention? In particular, were the first- and second-instance courts impartial, as required by Article 6 of the Convention? 2.     Was there a violation of the applicant’s right under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?