CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 mai 2025

.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 26 May 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 849/21 Violeta VELJKOVIKJ-JOSIFOVSKA against North Macedonia lodged on 15 December 2020 communicated on 5 May 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns alleged judicial inconsistency and insufficient reasoning in the domestic courts’ judgments in dismissing the applicant’s claim for salary supplements. The applicant was a civil servant at the Ministry of Finance until 2015, when she was reassigned to the Government’s Second-instance Commission in charge of misdemeanour proceedings (“the Commission”). The first-instance court dismissed the applicant’s claim, finding that the Commission lacked the requisite standing to be sued, as the applicant had obtained the right for the salary supplement while working at the Ministry of Finance. The Appeal Court confirmed that finding, not replying expressly to the applicant’s argument that the conclusion ran contrary to already established jurisprudence of the domestic courts. The applicant submits , inter alia, a copy of a judgment of the Appeal Court, delivered after the final judgment in her case, accepting the Commission’s standing and accepting the claims of the applicant’s colleague, who had also been reassigned from the Ministry of Finance to the Commission. In addition, the applicant submits copies of judgments of the Court of Appeal, delivered before the judgment in the applicant’s case, upholding claims of civil servants reassigned from and to different other state institutions. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about judicial inconsistency and insufficient reasoning in the domestic courts’ judgments. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of her civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular: (a) Was the principle of legal certainty breached on account of the divergent case-law allegedly applied to the applicant’s case (see Lupeni   Greek Catholic Parish and Others v. Romania [GC], no. 76943/11, §§ 116-134, 29 November 2016; Stoilkovska v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 29784/07, §§ 39-49, 18 July 2013; and Balažoski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no. 45117/08, §§ 29-34, 25 April 2013)? (b) Did the domestic courts provide sufficient reasoning in reply to the applicant’s arguments regarding the alleged deviation from the previously established case-law (see Meli and Swinkels Family Brewers N.V. v. Albania , nos. 41373/21 and 48801/21, §§ 68-69, 16 July 2024; and Deryan v. Turkey , no. 41721/04, §§ 30-43, 21 July 2015; Atanasovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no. 36815/03, §§ 36-39, 14 January 2010)?