CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 22 novembre 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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; 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 } Published on 11 December 2023   SECOND SECTION Application no. 39987/22 Stojanche RIBAREV against North Macedonia lodged on 3 August 2022 communicated on 22 November 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the dismissal from office of the applicant (a former judge of the Supreme Court) by the State Judicial Council (“the SJC”). An ad hoc Appeal Panel set up within the Supreme Court (“the Appeal Panel”) quashed the applicant’s dismissal and remitted the case to the SJC. It instructed the SJC, inter alia , to determine whether the complaint against the applicant submitted by V.D., a member of the SJC, in April 2020 had been lodged within the six-month time-limit for initiating the proceedings, given that between 2017 and 2019 the SJC had received reports concerning the events for which the applicant had been dismissed. In April 2022, the SJC again dismissed the applicant, reiterating its initial finding before the remittal that the relevant time-limit had started to run from February 2020 (when V.D. had become member of a Commission which had prepared the reports of 2018 and 2019). In July 2022, the SJC rejected the applicant’s appeal as inadmissible, given that under the SJC Act, its decisions after a remittal were not amenable to an appeal. The applicant appealed the latter decision before the Appeal Panel. In February 2023 the plenary of the Supreme Court adopted a general position ( начелен став ) that after a remittal the Appeal Panel could directly apply Article 6 and 13 of the Convention, as well as Amendment XXI, replacing Article 15 of the Constitution, providing for the right to appeal, and Article 50 of the Constitution providing for judicial protection of rights and freedoms. In March 2023 the SJC decided not to transfer the applicant’s file to the Supreme Court. The applicant complains under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention about the impossibility to challenge the decision of the SJC following the remittal and that in the remitted proceedings the SJC did not follow the instructions of the Appeal Panel regarding the relative time-limit. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, did the proceedings for the applicant’s dismissal before the State Judicial Council (SJC) and the Appeal Panel set up within the Supreme Court comply with the institutional requirements of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Cotora v. Romania , no. 30745/18, §§   34-44, 17 January 2023; Eminağaoğlu v. Turkey , no.   76521/12, §§ 95-99, 9   March 2021; and Ramos Nunes de Carvalho e Sá v. Portugal [GC], nos.   55391/13 and 2 others, §§ 131 et seq., 6 November 2018)? Did the applicant have access to a court for the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6 § 1 of the Convention given the decision of the SJC not to allow his appeal against the decision of April 2022 (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, did he have the possibility of an effective review of his dismissal by the Appeal Panel (see, mutatis mutandis , Oleksandr Volkov v. Ukraine , no. 21722/11, § 125, ECHR 2013, and Mnatsakanyan , cited above, §§ 64-65)? Did the Appeal Panel have “full jurisdiction” to review the decision of the SJC (see Oleksandr Volkov , cited above, §§ 123-129)? Was the principle of legal certainty respected, in view of the manner in which the SJC applied the statutory provisions regarding the applicable time-limit for initiating the proceedings for his dismissal (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)?