CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 octobre 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } Communicated on 11 October 2016   FIRST SECTION Application no. 73759/14 Slagana TASEVA PETROVSKA against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia lodged on 17 November 2014 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Ms Slagana Taseva Petrovska, is a Macedonian national who was born in 1960 and lives in Skopje. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. The applicant is a professor of law at a private university in Skopje. She holds a doctoral degree in the field of criminal law. On 14 January 2010 the applicant lodged a request with the Ministry of Justice in order to be recognised as having the same status as a person who had passed the bar exam (“изедначување со правата на лицата кои положиле правосуден испит”). She had not obtained a decision and, after a certain period of time, lodged another request. On 11 April 2012 the Ministry rejected her request, holding that she did not meet the criteria to obtain such recognition because she did not have a bachelor’s degree in law. On 10 May 2012 the applicant brought an action with the Administrative Court, challenging the refusal. She argued that by holding a doctoral degree in criminal law and by being a university professor she met the relevant criteria. On 30 May 2013 the Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s action. It held that regardless of her status, the applicant did not fulfil the criteria to obtain such recognition under domestic law. Specifically, it held that although the applicant held a doctoral degree in law, she did not hold a bachelor’s degree in law, which was one of the necessary conditions. Unsatisfied with the decision, on 23 September 2013 the applicant lodged an appeal with the High Administrative Court. In the appeal she argued that she met the relevant criteria and that the lower court had failed to interpret the procedural and substantive rules properly. On an unspecified date, the Ministry of Justice submitted observations to the High Administrative Court concerning the applicant’s case. Those observations were not communicated to the applicant. On 30 January 2014 the High Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal, repeating the reasons given by the lower court. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that her right to an adversarial trial was infringed during the proceedings before the High Administrative Court. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was Article 6 § 1 of the Convention under its civil head applicable to the proceedings in the present case?   2.     If so, did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of her civil rights, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the principle of adversarial proceedings before the High Administrative Court respected?