CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 juin 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 28 June 2016   FIRST SECTION Application no. 66007/13 Duško DIMOVSKI against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia lodged on 14 October 2013 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Duško Dimovski, is a Macedonian national, who was born in 1950 and lives in Gostivar. He is represented before the Court by Mr   B. Pandovski, a lawyer practising in Skopje. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. After being dismissed from his job in a private bank, the applicant initiated civil proceedings against his former employer for annulment of the dismissal decision. His claim was granted by a final court’s judgment of 23   December 2011 and the employer was instructed to reinstate the applicant to his job. On 13   March 2012 the applicant filed a civil claim against his employer seeking payment of unpaid salaries and social insurance contributions for the period between his dismissal and reinstatement, following the final judgment in the earlier set of proceedings. The exact amount requested by the applicant in the proceedings was to be determined on basis of a financial expert report. On 7 June 2012, during the preparatory hearing before the Gostivar Court of First Instance ( Основен суд Гостивар ), the applicant’s lawyer requested that the trial court commission a financial expert report. The financial expert that had been contacted by the applicant had maintained that he was unable to access the full records of the opponent without a court order. Despite the opponent’s objections that the applicant’s claim should be rejected as incomplete ( неуредна ), the trial court granted the applicant’s request and commissioned a financial expert report from a court appointed expert. On 17 October 2012, the trial court commissioned an additional financial expert report. At the main hearing on 30 January 2013, the financial expert who prepared the two reports was present with a view to be examined by the parties. However the trial court accepted the opponent’s objection that the applicant as the claimant in the proceedings failed to substantiate his allegations that his financial expert was denied access to the opponent’s records. The trial court revoked its earlier decisions to commission expert reports and refused to admit them into evidence. On 30 January 2013 the Gostivar Court of First Instance dismissed the applicant’s claim. It held that the applicant failed to substantiate his claim with a relevant financial expert report. The applicant appealed against the first-instance judgment. He complained that his claim was dismissed as unsubstantiated due to the fact that the trial court had not admitted two expert reports which it had earlier commissioned itself. On 2 July 2013 the Gostivar Court of Appeal ( Апелационен суд Гостивар ) dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the first-instance judgment. It held that the applicant failed to substantiate his claim that the expert had been denied access to the opponent’s records and endorsed the decision of the trial court not to admit the expert reports into evidence. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 6   §   1 of the Convention that the trial court dismissed his claim as unsubstantiated without admitting in evidence the relevant expert reports. He also invokes Article 1 of Protocol No.1. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the manner in which the domestic courts acted in respect of the expert reports proposed by the applicant fair, as required under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?   2. Did the domestic courts’ refusal to admit the expert reports, resulting in the applicant’s claim being dismissed, amount to an interference with his right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? If so, was that interference lawful and justified?