CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 21 mars 2016

.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 } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt }   Communicated on 21 March 2016   FIRST SECTION Application no. 26970/13 Gorgija SAZDOVSKI against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia lodged on 4 April 2013 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Gorgija Sazdovski, is a Macedonian national, who was born in 1946 and lives in Skopje. He is represented before the Court by Mr   D. Anastasov, 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 15 December 2011 A.S. (“the claimant”) instituted non-contentious proceedings against the applicant, applying for physical division of a piece of land which was in their joint possession. The application was lodged with the Skopje Court of First Instance. After the court had carried out an on-site inspection and held three hearings, on 28 June 2012 it declared that the claimant had withdrawn his application. During the proceedings, both parties were represented by a lawyer of their choice. On 10 July 2012 the applicant complained that the first-instance court had failed to order the claimant to reimburse the legal fees for his legal representation in the proceedings before the court. In this connection, he claimed 22,858 Macedonian denars (MKD) (approximately 370 euros (EUR)), calculated according to the tariff of the Macedonian Bar. By a decision of 12 November 2012, the Skopje Court of First Instance dismissed the applicant’s application for reimbursement of his legal fees, stating, inter alia , “a decision in respect of physical division directly concerns all parties to the proceedings ... no real costs were incurred ... the court dismisses [the applicant’s] application to order [the claimant] to reimburse the costs specified in [the applicant’s] submissions, which concern only legal fees.” The applicant appealed that decision and claimed reimbursement of an additional MKD 8,248 (approximately EUR 135) in respect of legal fees relating to the preparation of the appeal. He also claimed reimbursement of the court fees associated with lodging the appeal, but did not specify the amount claimed. On 7 March 2013 the Skopje Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance court’s decision, finding no grounds to depart from the reasons contained therein. B.     Relevant domestic law 1. Non-contentious Proceedings Act 2008 Under section 33(1) of the Non-contentious Proceedings Act, the provisions contained in the Civil Proceedings Act also apply to non-contentious proceedings, unless otherwise regulated by law. 2. Civil Proceedings Act Section 152(1) of the Civil Proceedings Act provides that a claimant who withdraws a claim is obliged to reimburse the trial costs of the defendant. COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention about the domestic courts’ refusal to order the claimant to reimburse the trial costs he incurred in the non-contentious proceedings. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant suffered a significant disadvantage within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (b) of the Convention?   2.     Has there been interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1? If so, was that interference in compliance with this provision?