CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 14 janvier 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2F5E426D { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sE202B2ED { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sBACB3E60 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#800080 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s9FE28126 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:42.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt }   28 14.01.2010     Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment [1] Atanasovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (application no. 36815/03)     DOMESTIC COURT’S DEPARTURE FROM WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW WITHOUT SUBSTANTIAL REASONS WAS UNFAIR   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights            Principal facts   The applicant, Petar Atanasovski, is a Macedonian national who was born in 1937 and lives in Bitola (“the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”). After having worked for “Aparati za domakinstvo”, a socially-owned company, for 30 years he was reassigned to the post of technologist in 1997. He subsequently brought a civil claim in which he sought to have his reassignment annulled, as he had never worked in that function. The lower courts granted his claim, but the Supreme Court rejected it in May 2003, holding that the employer had been entitled to assess the need for reassignment and that, in their reasoning, it had been sufficient to refer to the relevant provisions of national labour law.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 6 § 1 the applicant complained of the excessive length of the proceedings. Under the same article he also complained that, in deciding on his case, the Supreme Court departed from previously established practice – according to which employers were required to provide concrete reasons for reassignment – without providing reasons.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 17 November 2003.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Peer Lorenzen (Denmark), President, Renate Jaeger (Germany), Karel Jungwiert (the Czech Republic), Rait Maruste (Estonia), Mark Villiger (Liechtenstein), Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre (Monaco), Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska (“The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”), judges,   and also Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar .   Decision of the Court   The Court noted that, during the period falling within its competence, the length of proceedings was more than six years and one month for three levels of jurisdiction. It considered that the case had not required examination of complex issues. Contrary to the submissions of the Government, no evidence had been presented to show that the proceedings had been suspended at the applicant’s request with a view to a separate court action he had brought against his dismissal from work. The Court therefore held unanimously that the overall length of the proceedings had been excessive, in breach of Article 6 § 1.   Regarding the second complaint, the Court observed that in the applicant’s case the national Supreme Court had departed for the first time from its previous case law in holding that employers were not required to give specific reasons for the reassignment of an employee. The Court noted that case-law development was not in itself contrary to the proper administration of justice. However, the well-established case-law on this question had imposed a duty on the Supreme Court to give substantial reasons justifying a departure from that case-law. A mere statement that employers were no longer required to provide concrete reasons for reassignment had been insufficient. Accordingly, the Court held by six votes to one that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 also in respect of the applicant’s right to receive an adequately reasoned decision.   Judge Maruste expressed a dissenting opinion which is annexed to the judgment.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 2,600 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   *** The judgment is available only in English. This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. The judgments are available on its   website ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).     Press contacts Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79) or Stefano Piedimonte (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Frédéric Dolt (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer.