Communicated on 30 June 2017

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 39852/16 Sulejman ALIJEVSKI against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia lodged on 7 July 2016

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns disciplinary proceedings in which the applicant, a public prosecutor, was found responsible of professional misconduct that rendered him liable to a reduction of his monthly salary by 15 percent for three months. As specified in the Public Prosecution Act ( Закон за јавното обвинителство ) and the Act on State Board of Prosecutors ( Закон за Советот на јавни обвинители ) , 1) the proceedings were set in motion by the State public prosecutor; 2) a five-member disciplinary commission set up by the State public prosecutor determined all the questions of fact and law and made a ruling at first instance after holding a hearing and assessing the evidence ; 3) the State Board of Prosecutors, in which the State public prosecutor participated as an ex officio member , considered the applicant ’ s appeal and decided the case at second instance; and 4) these decisions were subject to judicial review and confirmed by two levels of Administrative Courts.

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was his case considered by an “independent and impartial tribunal” as required by this Article (see, mutatis mutandis, Jakšovski and Trifunovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , nos. 56381/09 and 58738/09, 7 January 2016 and Poposki and Duma v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , nos. 69916/10 and 36531/11, 7 January 2016 ? In this connection,

(a) Can the disciplinary commission that found the applicant responsible of professional misconduct and imposed the sanction be regarded impartial and independent in view of the fact that its members were appointed by the State public prosecutor who had initiated the impugned proceedings?

(b) Can the State Board of Prosecutors, which included the State public prosecutor as ex officio member, be regarded impartial and independent in view of the participation of the State public prosecutor in the decision of 7 May 2015?