Communicated on 9 May 2018
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 11828/16
Sonja TALEVSKA and Tatjana TRPCHESKA
against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
lodged on 26 February 2016
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The case concerns civil proceedings in which the applicants unsuccessfully claimed to have their employment as court clerks, which had been confirmed on 22 December 2011 by the acting president of their court, registered with the social security authorities.
After several remittals, on 12 February 2015, at a hearing held in private, the Bitola Court of Appeal reversed the first-instance court’s judgment in the applicants’ favour. Relying on a notice from the Judicial Council of 13 March 2013, submitted for the first time in the proceedings, that apparently had not been forwarded to the applicants, the Court of Appeal held that the acting president of the court had not been authorised to sign the employment decisions because his office had been registered with the Central Registry only on 3 January 2012. The court did not comment on the applicants’ objections that with a prior notice of 10 January 2013 the Judicial Council had confirmed that an acting president of a court had obtained the necessary authority on the date of his appointment. The Supreme Court upheld this judgment without addressing the applicants’ arguments and complaints.
QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES
1. 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:
(a) Was the principle of equality of arms and adversarial hearing respected in the proceedings before the Bitola Court of Appeal in view of the applicants’ allegations that they were not provided with an opportunity to have knowledge of, and comment on the notice of the Judicial Council of 13 March 2013 on which that court’s judgment relied (see Naumoski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 25248/05, § 28, 27 November 2012)?
(b) Has there been a breach of the applicants’ right to an oral hearing given that no hearing was held before the Bitola Court of Appeal?
(c) Did the Supreme Court’s judgment contain sufficient reasons as required under Article 6 of the Convention (see Lăcătuş and Others v. Romania, no. 12694/04, § 102, 13 November 2012; Jaćimović v. Croatia, no. 22688/09, § 52, 31 October 2013; and Răchită v. Romania, no. 15987/09, § 57, 17 May 2016)?
2. Was there a violation of the applicants’ rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?
APPENDIX
The first applicant, Sonja TALEVSKA was born in 1982. The second applicant Tatjana TRPCHESKA was born in 1985. Both applicants live in Ohrid and are represented by R. Novakovski..
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy