CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 octobre 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sAB7CA1DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid } .s7D30AD2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid } .sED30E5A2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } Published on 30 October 2023   SECOND SECTION Applications nos. 19689/21 and 42794/22 Silvana ILIEVSKA against North Macedonia and Suzana ZDRAVEVA against North Macedonia lodged on 8 April 2021 and 26 August 2022 respectively communicated on 10 October 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicants are former judges of the Bitola Court of First Instance (the first applicant) and the Shtip Court of Appeal (the second applicant) who were dismissed from office with final effect by the State Judicial Council (“the SJC”) after an ad hoc   Appeal Panel set up within the Supreme Court (“the Appeal Panel”) quashed the SJC’s initial decisions for their dismissal and remitted the cases for fresh consideration. In particular, in respect of the second applicant, the Appeal Panel instructed the SJC, inter alia , to assess the importance of a general decision of the president of the Shtip Court of Appeal concerning grounds of recusal. After the remittal, the SJC found that the second applicant had failed to withdraw from sitting in a case in which a party to the proceedings was represented by a law firm in which her son worked, notwithstanding the previous practice confirmed by the general decision of the president of the Shtip Court of Appeal that such a situation was not a ground for her recusal. The SJC found that such a failure by the applicant amounted to a professional misconduct. The applicants appealed against their dismissals after the remittal. In December 2020, the SJC rejected the first applicant’s appeal as inadmissible, given that under the SJC Act, its decisions after a remittal were not amenable to an appeal. The applicants complain under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention about the impossibility to challenge the decisions of the SJC following the remittals and that in the remitted proceedings the SJC did not follow the instructions of the Appeal Panel. The second applicant further complains that the SJC dismissed her from office contrary to the well-established practice of the court in which she was sitting, in violation of the principle of legal certainty.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of their civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? In   particular, given the impossibility to challenge the decisions of the SJC following the remittals, did the applicants have access to a court for the determination of their civil rights and obligations, in accordance with that Article (see Zubac v. Croatia [GC], no.   40160/12, §§ 77, 78 and 80, 5 April 2018, and Mnatsakanyan v. Armenia , no. 2463/12, § 63, 6 December 2022)? For the same reasons, was the review of their dismissal carried out by the Appeal Panel effective within the meaning of that Article (see, mutatis mutandis , Oleksandr Volkov v. Ukraine , no. 21722/11, § 125, ECHR 2013, and Mnatsakanyan , cited above, §§ 64-65)? With respect to the second applicant, was the principle of legal certainty respected given the established practice of the Shtip Court of Appeal concerning the grounds for recusal of a judge (see Balažoski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no.   45117/08, § 29, 25 April 2013, and Stoilkovska v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no. 29784/07, § 39, 18 July 2013)?