Communicated on 16 March 2015
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 61228/12
Zorica LAZAREVSKA
against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
lodged on 7 September 2012
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Ms Zorica Lazarevska, is a Macedonian national, who was born in 1949 and lives in Skopje.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
1. Background to the case
The applicant works at the Ministry of Interior (“the Ministry”).
On 11 January 2002 the Skopje Court of First Instance (“the first-instance court”) upheld the applicant’s civil claim for annulment of the Ministry’s decision for her reassignment. On 15 February 2003 the Skopje Court of Appeal (“the appellate court”) confirmed that judgment.
On an unspecified date, in enforcement proceedings, 37,428.50 Macedonian denars (MKD) was paid to the applicant in respect of trial costs incurred in the above proceedings.
On 25 December 2003 the Supreme Court accepted the employer’s appeal on points of law, overturned the lower courts’ judgments and finally dismissed the applicant’s claim.
2. Civil proceedings for unlawful enrichment
On 3 February 2011 the first-instance court upheld the Ministry’s claim against the applicant for unlawful enrichment (стекнување без основ), concerning the reimbursement of trial costs, together with statutory interest.
On 6 April 2011 a copy of that judgment was delivered to the Ministry. An employee of the Ministry accepted the delivery on behalf of the applicant and signed the slip receipt (доставница) in her stead.
On 14 April 2011 the applicant was given a copy of the judgment by an employee of the Ministry. This date was stamped on the envelope which, according to the applicant, contained the first-instance court’s judgment. It also contains the applicant’s signature and the signature of the employee of the Ministry.
On 21 April 2011 the applicant submitted two different appeals to the first-instance court, one in person and the other, by surface mail.
On 7 March 2012 the appellate court rejected the applicant’s appeals as lodged out of time. It stated that:
“In the present case, the impugned judgment contains a notice on legal remedies (правна поука) according to which the deadline for lodging an appeal is eight days. [The applicant], as evident from the slip receipt for service in person, received [the judgment] of 3 February 2011 on 6 April 2011, and from the appeals it is visible that one of them is lodged on 21 April 2011 directly to the court and the other one is sent by post with registered mail on 21 April 2011 and received by the court on 26 April 2011, which indicates that the appeals lodged by [the applicant] are lodged out of time, i.e. after the expiration of the eight-day [time limit].”
On 6 July 2012 a copy of the latter decision was served on the applicant, on her own request.
On 3 August 2012 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court against the decision of 7 March 2012. No information was submitted as to the outcome, if any, of this appeal.
3. Other information
The applicant complained to several institutions about the rejection of her appeals, including the Constitutional Court and the State Judicial Council.
On 11 July 2012 the Ministry confirmed that the applicant had been regular at work between 6 and 14 April 2014.
On 20 February 2013 the Ministry informed the applicant that the Ministry’s Sector for Internal Control and Professional Standards had found that an employee of the Ministry, whose identity had not been revealed, had made a serious breach of the reputation of the service (потешка значителна повреда на угледот на службата при преземањето на службените дејствија) since (s)he had served the copy of the judgment of 3 February 2011 on the applicant eight days after it had been delivered in the Ministry. Given the statutory time-bar, no disciplinary proceedings were initiated against that employee.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains that her appeals were rejected as out of time.
QUESTIONS 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, was she denied the “right to a court”, of which the right of access is one aspect, as her appeals of 21 April 2011 were rejected as lodged out of time?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy