Communicated on 1 March 2016

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 18075/13 Goran DIMITRIEVSKI against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia lodged on 5 March 2013

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Goran Dimitrievski , is a Macedonian national who was born in 1971 and lives in Kumanovo . He is represented before the Court by Ms M. Dumanovska , a lawyer practising in Kumanovo .

The circumstances of the case

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

The applicant, an army reservist, was stationed in the region around Tetovo during 2001. On 15 September 2001 the tent where he was staying caught on fire. The applicant was transferred to a hospital with second ‑ degree burns on his face, arm and the palms of his hands.

On 6 February 2006 the public prosecutor filed an indictment with the Skopje Court of First Instance ( Основен суд Скопје ) against L.V., V.R. and B.A. who were apparently the superior officers of the applicant ’ s army unit. They were accused of negligence while in charge of the protection of an army unit ( непреземање мерки за заштита на воена единица ) and of serious crimes against public security ( тешки дела против општата сигурност ).

On 22 February 2008 the applicant filed a compensation claim with the Skopje Court of First Instance for the non-pecuniary damage he allegedly suffered as result of the incident. He filed his civil claim within the framework of the criminal proceedings initiated by the public prosecutor against L.V., V.R and B.A.

On 17 October 2011 the Skopje Court of First Instance discontinued the criminal proceedings because the prosecution had become time-barred.

On 11 April 2012 the applicant, through his legal representative, lodged an application for the protection of his right to a hearing within a reasonable time in regard to the discontinued criminal proceedings, duly accompanied with a signed power of attorney. The applicant had given the authority to his lawyer to represent him in various administrative and court proceedings for the purpose of the protection of his rights and interests.

On 2 May 2012 the Supreme Court notified the applicant ’ s representative that the application was incomplete and requested that the applicant submit a proper power of attorney ( уредно полномошно ) within eight days.

On 21 May 2012 the applicant ’ s representative again submitted a power of attorney signed by the applicant.

On 18 September 2012 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant ’ s application for the protection of his right to a hearing within a reasonable time as incomplete ( неуредно ). It held that the power of attorney submitted by the applicant ’ s representative had been a general one and had not specified that the representative was authorised to represent the applicant in proceedings for protection of his right to a hearing within a reasonable time.

The applicant ’ s representative appealed against the decision of the Supreme Court, stating that, in principle, domestic law did not impose formal requirements concerning a power of attorney and that therefore the submission of a general power of attorney instead of a specific one should not have been held against the applicant. Article 36 of the Courts Act ( Закон за судовите , Official Gazette nos.58/2006, 35/2008 and 150/2010 ) does not set out any formal requirements for a power of attorney in proceedings for an application for the protection of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time. The applicant ’ s representative also asserted that in previous cases the Supreme Court had accepted a general power of attorney submitted by her on behalf of other individuals in proceedings for the protection of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time.

On 19 November 2012 the second-instance panel of the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal and upheld the rejection of his application.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that he was denied the right of access to the Supreme Court in the proceedings for an application for the protection of his right to a hearing within a reasonable time.

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 the applicant denied the right of access to a court concerning his length-of-proceedings complaint before the Supreme Court ?