CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 mai 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 4 May 2016   FIRST SECTION Application no. 52184/13 Vlado VELIČKOV against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia lodged on 7 August 2013 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns administrative proceedings for granting a special social allowance to redundant workers from bankrupted State-owned companies on basis of an Act of 2008 ( Закон за материјално обезбедување на невработените лица поради приватизацијата на претпријатијата со доминантна сопственост на државата во периодот од 2000 до 2004 , Official Gazette no. 87/2008). The applicant’s claim was dismissed by the administrative courts, at two levels, because his former employer had not been included in a Government’s list of State-owned companies that was communicated to the Employment Office, as stipulated by the Act. The applicant, who is a Macedonian national, complains under Article 6   §   1 of the Convention that he could not effectively argue his case because the crucial evidence for the outcome of his claim – the Government’s list of companies – was never communicated to him and he had no possibility to have knowledge of it and to challenge it effectively. 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 principle of equality of arms respected in the impugned administrative proceedings, namely, was the applicant given the opportunity to have knowledge of and comment on the Government’s list of State-owned companies?