CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 avril 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 } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt }   Communicated on 18 April 2016   FIRST SECTION Application no. 75968/12 Jordan ANDONOV against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia lodged on 22 November 2012 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Jordan Andonov, is a Macedonian national, who was born in 1947 and lives in Sveti Nikole. He is represented before the Court by Mr T. Torov, a lawyer practising in Štip. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. The applicant was a member of the executive board of a private company. He lodged a civil claim against the company seeking remuneration for his membership on the executive board in the amount of 864,330 Macedonian denars (MKD). On 26 September 2008 the Štip Court of First Instance ( Основен суд Штип ) partially admitted the applicant’s claim and awarded him MKD   588,480. On 18 March 2009 the Štip Court of Appeal ( Апелационен суд Штип ) partially upheld the first-instance judgment and remitted the part of the claim dismissed by the first-instance court for reconsideration. Following an appeal on points of law lodged by the defendant, on 3 June 2010 the Supreme Court overturned the judgments of the lower courts and dismissed the applicant’s claim in the amount of MKD 588,480. It found that in the absence of a decision by the company’s shareholders’ assembly, the applicant was not entitled to remuneration for his membership on the executive board.   On 9 October 2009, in the course of the resumed proceedings concerning the part of the applicant’s claim that was initially dismissed, the Štip Court of First Instance ruled in his favour. It awarded him MKD 239,070. That judgment was upheld by the Štip Court of Appeal on 9 June 2010. Following the decision of the Supreme Court of 3 June 2010, the defendant lodged a request to reopen the proceedings concerning the second part of the applicant’s claim. It argued that the two sets of proceedings were intrinsically linked and arose out of the same factual and legal circumstances, and that the interpretation given by the Supreme Court of the substantive law should also be applied to the second part of the applicant’s claim that was decided in the resumed proceedings. As the value of the second part of the claim fell below the statutory threshold, the defendant could not lodge an appeal on points of law. On 1 March 2011 the defendant’s request to reopen the proceedings was granted by the Štip Court of First Instance. That decision was upheld by the Štip Court of Appeal on 6 September 2011, with Judge S.N. presiding over a three-judge panel. In the reopened proceedings, the Štip Court of First Instance by a judgment of 2 November 2011 fully dismissed the applicant’s claim, in line with the reasoning of the Supreme Court. In an appeal against the first-instance judgment the applicant requested that Judge S.N. be removed from the appellate panel. He stated that he had doubts about the judge’s impartiality because of their troubled personal relationship. The applicant alleged that he and Judge S.N. had not spoken to each other for a long time and that he considered that their bad personal relationship might have an adverse impact on the judge’s impartiality, as he believed was evident from the upholding of the decision to reopen the proceedings. On 16 May 2012 the Štip Court of Appeal, sitting as a three-judge panel with Judge S.N. presiding, dismissed the applicant’s appeal. It did not make any comments on the applicant’s concerns about the impartiality of the judge. COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article 6   §   1 of the Convention that the Štip Court of Appeal was not impartial. 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 Štip Court of Appeal which rendered the judgment of 16   May 2012 impartial, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?