Communicated on 23 February 2016

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 73087/12 Jovan PRODANOV against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia lodged on 14 November 2012

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Jovan Prodanov , is a Macedonian national who was born in 1933 and lives in Gevgelija . He is represented before the Court by Mr D. Ajcev , a lawyer practising in Gevgelija .

The circumstances of the case

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

On 6 November 2000 a person called G.P. brought a civil action against the applicant in the Gevgelija Court of First Instance (Основен суд Гевгелија ) , seeking recognition of a property title over part of a house owned by the applicant. The value of the dispute was set at 40,000 Macedonian denars (MKD).

On 31 December 2002 the Gevgelija Court of First Instance admitted the claim and ruled against the applicant. That judgment was upheld by the Skopje Court of Appeal ( Апелационен суд Скопје) on 4 September 2003.

On 17 December 2003 the Public Prosecutor submitted a request for protection of legality on behalf of the applicant.

On 9 June 2004, the Supreme Court annulled the lower courts ’ judgments and remitted the case for reconsideration.

The applicant brought a counterclaim against G.P., seeking annulment of a gift contract. Both claims were joined and examined in single proceedings.

Starting from 29 December 2005, the new Civil Procedure Act ( Закон за парничната постапка , Official Gazette nos. 79/2005) was applicable to all cases pending before first-instance courts.

On 24 January 2006 the Civil Law Section of the Skopje Court of Appeal reached a conclusion concerning all pending cases to which the new Civil Procedure Act applied, instructing the lower courts to provide appropriate directions to the parties and to postpone upcoming hearings in order to provide the parties with an opportunity to undertake all the necessary actions regarding their cases.

During a hearing held on 15 February 2006, the trial court informed the parties, in accordance with the conclusion of the Skopje Court of Appeal, that the next hearing, scheduled for 20 March 2006, would be considered as a preparatory hearing.

During the preparatory hearing held on 20 March 2006, the applicant ’ s legal representative expressed his intention to increase the value of the dispute to MKD 500,100.

On 10 May 2006, before the beginning of the main hearing, the trial judge instructed the applicant to pay additional court fees, in accordance with the increased value of the dispute. The applicant paid the additional court fees as instructed.

On 12 January 2009 the Gevgelija Court of First Instance ruled in favour of the claimant, dismissing the applicant ’ s claim. In the introductory part of the first-instance judgment, MKD 40,000 was indicated as the value of the dispute.

On 13 April 2009, acting upon a request made by the applicant, the Gevgelija Court of First Instance amended the first-instance judgment regarding the value of the dispute to MKD 501,000, maintaining that an obvious error had occurred during the drafting of the judgment.

On 2 September 2010 the Skopje Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by the applicant. The appeal court ’ s judgment indicated MKD 40,000 as the value of the dispute.

On 9 December 2010, acting upon a request made by the applicant that the appeal court ’ s judgment be amended in accordance with the increased value of the dispute, the Skopje Court of Appeal accepted the applicant ’ s request and amended that judgment.

The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law, which the Supreme Court, rejected as inadmissible on 17 May 2012.

The Supreme Court held that the value of the dispute, set at MKD 40,000, fell below the statutory threshold of MKD 500,000. Furthermore, it considered that the fact that the value of the dispute had been amended by a decision of the Court of Appeal was irrelevant, as that increase had been done at the wrong stage of proceedings and had not pertained to an obvious error in drafting.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of an infringement of his right to access to the Supreme Court.

QUESTION 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 given that his appeal on points of law was rejected by the Supreme Court?

The Government are required to provide copies of all relevant documents concerning the applicant ’ s case.