Communicated on 23 March 2017

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 52370/14 Irena SPIROVSKA and Igor SPIROVSKI against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia lodged on 17 July 2014

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicants, Ms Irena Spirovska and Mr Igor Spirovski, are Macedonian nationals, who were born in 1960 and live in Skopje.

The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.

The applicants are wife and husband. They are the owners of a plot of land in Skopje, which they had purchased from the State.

On 15 February 2012 the second applicant lodged a private criminal action against N.G. before the Skopje Court of First Instance for misappropriation of a right, defamation and insult following a verbal confrontation that happened between them when the second applicant attempted to build a fence around his plot.

On 10 May 2012 N.G. submitted a response to the court denying the charges. In the response he stated inter alia that “[...] the Spirovski couple had usurped a plot of land” and “the real crime i n this case was committed by Mr Spirovski in 2001 when [he] submitted a request with the land registry [...]”.

On 6 April 2012 the applicant brought a separate criminal action against N.G. and C.G. in the Skopje Court of First Instance on charges of the use of falsified documents.

N.G. submitted a response to the proposal on 24 October 2012. In it he used the following phrases: “It is a perverted attempt [by the applicants] to present forged documents dating from 2001 as real and legitimate, with the aim of taking a plot of land against the law. In my view, only thieves and forgers [referring to the applicants] could claim that our original documents are ‘ false evidence ’ ”, “the real crime in this case was committed in 2001 in the decisions of the Land Register Nos. [...] by Mr Spirovski”, “As a lawyer and a former judge of the Constitutional Court, Mr Spirovski [...], intentionally and in full conscience committed a serious crime - initiating and assisting in the creation of fake and forged numerical data [in the Land Registry]”, “using forgery, Igor Spirovski is taking my land” and “[...] to take my father ’ s property, Igor and Irena Spirovski had to commit three serious crimes [...]”.

On 11 January 2013 the applicants lodged a claim for damages against G.N. claiming defamation. They stated that by using the abovementioned phrases in both abovementioned submissions made by N.G. to the domestic courts they harmed the applicants ’ reputation and sought damages in the amount of MKD 900,000 (around EUR 15,000).

At a hearing held before Skopj e Court of First Instance on 13 September 2013 N.G. confirmed that he had used the above phrases. He reiterated that the plot of land in question had been usurped by the applicants by means of crime.

On 19 September 2013 the applicants ’ claim was dismissed. The reasons were that although N.G. had indeed used the phrases as stated above, considering that he was accused in those proceedings, he was within his rights to defend himself by using such wording. The First Instance Court held that the phrases in question were value judgments and that preventing N.G. from expressing his opinion about the applicants in such a way would be contrary to his freedom of expression.

The ap plicants lodged an appeal on 24 October 2013. In the appeal they stated that the phrases used by N.G. were in fact statements of fact (and not value judgments) and the fact that N.G. was defending himself in court, should not absolve him from responsibility for defamation.

The applicants ’ appeal was dismissed by Skopje Court of Appeal on 5 March 2014. That court upheld the lower court ’ s finding classifying the statements as value judgments and found that although the phrasing used by N.G. may have appeared excessive, in the specific circumstances (defending himself in court), they did not reach the level of defamation.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complain under Article 8 of the Convention that the State failed to ensure the respect for their right to a reputation.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Does the final judgment of the Skopje Court of Appeal of 5 March 2014 disclose a failure to protect the applicants ’ right to private life, and therefore a breach of the respondent State ’ s positive obligations under Article 8 of the Convention?