FIRST SECTION
Application no. 54344/07
Angela RISTEVSKA and Goran RISTEVSKI
against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
lodged on 1 December 2007
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicants, Ms Angela Ristevska (“the first applicant”) and Mr Goran Ristevski (“the second applicant”), are Macedonian nationals, who were born in 1975 and 1974 respectively and live in Bitola. They are represented before the Court by Mr V. Atanasov, a lawyer practising in Bitola.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
On 26 June 1997 the second applicant had a traffic accident in which he sustained heavy bodily injuries affecting his reproductive function.
On 16 November 2000 the second applicant and an insurance company (“the company”) settled as regards damages sustained in the traffic accident. The settlement did not apply to the second applicant’s future claim for compensation of medical expenses for “transplantation (abridging) of fertilisation canals”.
On 22 October 2004 the second applicant, based on the settlement, unsuccessfully requested the company to pay medical expenses for the in vitro fertilisation of his wife – the first applicant.
On 29 November 2004 the applicants lodged a civil claim against the company.
On 3 June 2005 the Bitola Court of First Instance, with a partial judgment on the substance (меѓупресуда), upheld the applicants’ claim on the merits and reserved the decision about trial costs. On 13 December 2005 the Bitola Court of Appeal dismissed the company’s appeal and confirmed the first-instance partial judgment.
On 20 March 2006 the public prosecutor lodged before the Supreme Court a request for the protection of legality (барање за заштита на законитоста). In reply, the applicants asked the Supreme Court to reject the public prosecutor’s request since the proceedings had not yet been completed and should have therefore continued in accordance with the provisions of the new Civil Proceedings Act of 2005 which no longer foresaw the extraordinary remedy lodged by the public prosecutor.
On 9 May 2007 the Supreme Court upheld the public prosecutor’s request and overturned the lower court’s decision dismissing the applicants’ claim. The applicants were served with the Supreme Court’s decision on 13 June 2007.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 about the fairness of the proceedings since, despite the earlier final judgment in their favour, the Supreme Court, upon the public prosecutor’s intervention, dismissed their civil claim. They also complain that the Supreme Court’s decision violated their rights under Articles 8, 12 and 14 of the Convention.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of their civil rights and obligations in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
In particular, was there a violation of Article 6 § 1 as a result of the Supreme Court’s decision of 9 May 2007 given upon the public prosecutor’s request for the protection of legality overturning the final judgment which was in the applicants’ advantage (see, mutatis mutandis, Bočvarska v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 27865/02, §§ 3-84, 17 September 2009)?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy