Communicated on 10 March 2017
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 59842/14
Nikola STOIMENOVIK and Marko MILOŠEVIK
against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
lodged on 25 August 2014
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicants, Mr Nikola Stoimenovik (N.S.) and Mr Marko Miloševik (M.M.), are Macedonian nationals who were born in 1965 and 2005 respectively. They live in Skopje. The applicants are father and son. The late Borka Spasojevik (B.S.) was the first applicant’s mother and the second applicant’s grandmother.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
On 9 February 2007 an indictment was lodged against a group of twenty‑one individuals, including N.S., B.S. and O.M. on charges of abuse of office, fraud and money laundering.
On 12 April 2007 the Skopje Criminal Court of First Instance (Основен суд Скопје I Скопје) found the three of them guilty for crimes committed while acting as part of an organised group. N.S., who had been a notary public, was sentenced to fourteen years’ imprisonment. B.S. was given a suspended prison sentence. They were found guilty of, among other things, laundering money through fictitious loan agreements concluded before the first applicant in his capacity as a notary public. On the basis of those agreements third persons had made transfers to B.S.’s account in repayment of the fictitious loans, which was found to constitute money laundering. O.M. was found guilty of concluding fictitious loan agreements with B.S., thereby participating in money laundering.
On 26 February 2008 the Skopje Court of Appeal upheld the judgment and the lower court’s findings in full. The Court of Appeal (Апелационен Суд Скопје) sat as a panel of five judges, which included Judge M.S. The decision later became final.
On 1 July 2010 O.M., D.M. and G.M. brought a civil claim against B.S. They sought to annul two individual loan agreements that they had concluded with B.S., alleging that they were fictitious. The agreements had been concluded before N.S. as a notary public. They stated that the contracts had never been brought into effect and that no payments had been made between the parties because the real reason for them had been money laundering. The plaintiffs relied on the judgment and evidence from the criminal proceedings to support their claim.
On an undetermined date the case was joined with another civil case between the same parties in which B.S. sought to recover debt from O.M., D.M. and G.M. on the basis on the same impugned loan agreements.
On 12 September 2011 the Skopje Civil Court of First Instance (Основен Суд Скопје II Скопје) ruled against B.S. and annulled the loan agreements. The court determined the key issue as being the existence of fictitious agreements, and particularly the lack of any business relations (постоење на должничко – доверителски односи) between the parties, relying on the findings of the criminal court and the transcript of the hearings held in that case, which were used as a crucial piece of evidence in the proceedings.
On 12 October 2011 B.S. lodged an appeal. On 5 January 2012 she died.
On 25 April 2012 the Skopje Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s judgment, supporting its reasoning and its reliance on the criminal judgment as a crucial piece of evidence.
On 15 June 2012 B.S.’s lawyer lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court in her name.
On 26 December 2013 the Supreme Court, as a panel of five judges which included Judge M.S., dismissed the appeal on points of law.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complain under Article 6 of the Convention of a lack of impartiality because Judge M.S. sat on the Court of Appeal panel which decided on the criminal case against the first applicant and his mother and on the Supreme Court panel that decided on the civil claim against the applicant’s mother.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Can the applicants Nikola Stojmenovik and Marko Miloševik claim to be victims of the alleged violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, within the meaning of Article 34?
2. Was the Supreme Court panel which decided on B.S.’s appeal on points of law impartial, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, given that Judge M.S., who sat on that panel, had previously sat on a panel at the Skopje Court of Appeal that had given judgment against B.S. in related criminal proceedings concerning the same parties?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy