CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 26 mars 2019

.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 }   Communicated on 26 March 2019   FIRST SECTION Application no. 68005/17 Angel BUNGUROV against North Macedonia lodged on 7 September 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF the CASE The application concerns the rejection of the applicant’s civil claim for annulment of his dismissal from the National Football Federation. On 5   December 2014 the trial judge of the Skopje Court of First Instance rejected as incomplete the applicant’s civil claim because he had failed to submit a copy of an extract of the central register for the defendant, as required under section 98(3) of the Civil Procedure Act. The applicant challenged this decision, claiming that the required document had been attached to the second copy of his civil action, as confirmed by a court clerk who had inspected the case-file in the presence of the applicant’s lawyer. On 9   February 2017 the Supreme Court finally dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law finding that the required document had not been appended to the civil action, without commenting on the remarks of the court clerk. The applicant’s lawyer received a copy of this decision on 7   March 2017. QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Having regard to the Skopje Court of First Instance’s decision of 5   December 2014 rejecting the applicant’s civil claim, was the applicant denied the right of access to a court, in breach of Article 6   §   1 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Fetaovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no. 10649/03, §§ 37-42, 19 June 2008, Sotiris and Nikos Koutras ATTEE v. Greece , no. 39442/98, §§ 14-23, ECHR 2000 ‑ XII, and Běleš and Others v. the Czech Republic , no. 47273/99, § 50, ECHR   2002 ‑ IX)?