Mickovski v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”

Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 80

November 2005

Mickovski v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” - 68329/01

Decision 10.11.2005 [Section III]

Article 6

Criminal proceedings

Article 6-1

Criminal charge

Applicability of Article 6 to a dispute concerning the dismissal from his post of a Deputy Solicitor General: Article 6 inapplicable

The applicant, who is a member of the Social-Democrat Political Party, was appointed Deputy Solicitor General by the Government for a term of four years. He was dismissed from the post before the expiry of his term. The Constitutional Court refused to examine the applicant’s complaint that he had been discriminated against on political grounds, finding that his complaint had been lodged out of time. However, it appeared that the applicant had sent his application by post to the Constitutional Court within the prescribed time-limits but that it had been returned to him since it had not been collected by the receiver. The Supreme Court refused to examine the applicant’s complaint considering that it was not amenable to judicial review within the Administrative Disputes Act. The applicant complained that he was denied access to a court.

Inadmissible under Article 6: As a preliminary observation, the Court noted that the applicant had lodged his complaint within the requisite time-limit. He had produced as evidence a receipt from the Post Office showing that his letter had been returned because the Constitutional Court had not made arrangements to collect its mail in the summer period. Once an applicant has taken the appropriate steps to lodge a notice or submission with a court, a court should be able properly to ensure the receipt and recording of those documents. However, as regards the question of the applicability of Article 6, the post of Deputy Solicitor General was an office of Government entrusted with the duty of taking legal measures to protect state property and other state interests, as well as representing the State and its various institutions in domestic and foreign fora. Such duties could be regarded as being designed to safeguard the general interests of the State or other public authorities. Hence, the dispute concerning the applicant’s discharge from office fell outside the scope of Article 6(1): incompatible ratione materiae.

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes

 

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy