CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 janvier 2017

.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 5 January 2017   FIRST SECTION Application no. 50520/15 DOO VIO-MARK-IN BANKRUPTCY against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia lodged on 7 October 2015 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant company, DOO Vio-Mark, is a limited liability company incorporated under Macedonian law, which has its registered office in Resen. The company is currently going through insolvency proceedings and is represented by its trustee in insolvency. Before the Court, it is represented by Mr I. Spirovski, a lawyer practising in Skopje. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant company, may be summarised as follows. On 24 October 2005 the Debar-Kičevo diocese of the Macedonian Orthodox Church lodged a civil action against the applicant company before the Ohrid Court of First Instance. The aim of the action was to establish property rights in respect of a building situated in the monastery complex of St Naum, near Ohrid. The value of the property was set at 40,000 Macedonian denars (MKD). On 17 October 2005 the applicant company lodged a counterclaim, seeking to establish property rights in relation to the same property. At a hearing before the Ohrid Court of First Instance, held on 3 July 2009, the parties made a joint proposal to increase the value in the dispute to MKD 2,000,000. The court accepted this and adjourned the hearing in order to change the formation of the court from a single-judge formation to a judicial panel. By a judgment delivered on 20 July 2011 the court allowed the claim. The value of the claim reflected in the judgment was MKD 2,000,000. The legal expenses determined in the judgment were calculated according to this value. Following an appeal lodged by the applicant company, on 21 May 2012 the Bitola Court of Appeal remitted the case. The value of the claim reflected in that judgement was MKD 2,000,000. The claim was allowed by the Ohrid Court of First Instance and the Bitola Court of Appeal on 29 October 2012 and 16 September 2013 respectively. Both judgements reflect the value of the claim as being MKD 2,000,000. On 4 December 2013 the applicant company lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court. On 11 March 2015 the Supreme Court rejected the appeal on points of law as inadmissible ratione valoris . It stated that it could not accept the value of the dispute as being MKD 2,000,000, because the value had been changed “at an inappropriate stage of the proceedings”, and the initial value of MKD 40,000 fell short of the statutory threshold for a review of the merits by that court. COMPLAINTS The applicant company complains under Article 6 of the Convention that the rejection of its appeal on points of law amounted to a denial of its right of access to the Supreme Court. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has the applicant company been denied its “right to a court” in the determination of its civil rights and obligations, in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the refusal of the Supreme Court to consider its appeal on points of law amount to a violation of this provision?