Communicated on 22 June 2015

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 79037/12 Zoran KARADŽA and Zlatko VASKOV against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia lodged on 3 December 2012

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicants, Mr Zoran Karadža and Mr Zlatko Vaskov , are Macedonian nationals, who were born in 1963 and 1950 respectively and live in Skopje . They are represented before the Court by Mr D. Godžo and Mr A. God ž o , lawyers practising in Ohrid .

A. The circumstances of the case

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

In 1948 hotel Bristol (“the hotel”), which is located in the central area of Skopje , was confiscated from the applicants ’ predecessors. The hotel was transferred to a socially-owned company (“the company”). The company ’ s assets, including the hotel, were subject, on the basis of several decisions dated 1995, to reconstruction (privatisation). The applicants ’ requests that the hotel was separated from the company ’ s assets were to no avail.

On 24 April 1997 the applicants brought a civil action against the company and the State claiming nullity of decisions concerning the privatisation of the company ’ s assets, in part concerning the hotel. They also sought that the courts deduct ( резервира ) the hotel from the company ’ s assets and transfer it in the State ’ s (temporary) possession. The applicants did not specify the value of the dispute in the claim.

On an unspecified date, the applicants also instituted administrative proceedings in which they claimed restitution of the hotel. With a decision of 24 November 2006 the restitution proceedings were stayed pending the outcome of the civil proceedings.

Between 2002 and 2007 the Skopje Court of First Instance ruled, on three occasions, in favour of the applicants with judgments that were set aside by the Skopje Court of Appeal.

On 5 February 2009 the Skopje Court of First Instance again held for the applicants. As specified in the judgment, the value of the hotel was set at German Marks 1,323,000. The defendants appealed against this judgment. In reply, the applicants specified the claim value at 1,875,000 denars . With a judgment of 4 November 2009 the Skopje Court of Appeal overturned this judgment and dismissed the applicants ’ claim.

The applicants lodged an appeal on points of law, which the Supreme Court, with a judgment of 12 April 2012, rejected as inadmissible. It held that the applicants had not specified the value of the dispute in the claim and that their submissions setting that value at 1,875,000 denars had not been made at appropriate stage of the proceedings.

B. Relevant domestic law

Section 33 of the Civil Proceedings Act of 2005 provide d inter alia that, in cases not relating to pecuniary requests, the relevant value of the dispute would be the one indicated by the plaintiff in the claim. W hen the value of the dispute sp ecified by the plaintiff appeared to be “obviously too high or too low”, and thus might affect, the composition of the court or the availability of an appeal on points of law, the court of first instance should itself assess the accu racy of the specified value. That was to be done speedily and in an adequate manner, at the preliminary hearing ( подготвително рочиште ) at the latest, or, if one wa s not held, at the main oral hearing ( главна расправа ) before the examination of the merits.

Under section 35 of the Act, disputes at first instance were decided by a panel or a single judge.

Section 36(1) provided that a single judge decided disputes, which claim value did not exceed 600,000 denars .

Under section 372(2) parties could lodge an appeal on points of law if the value of the dispute, as indicated by the plaintiff in his claim, exceed ed 500,0 00 de nars (equivalent to EUR 8,000) .

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complain under Article 6 of the Convention about the rejection of their appeal on points of law. They also invoked Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of their civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Ar ticle 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, were the applicant s denied the “right of access to a court” given that their appeal on points of law was rejected by the Supreme Court ?

2. Has there been an interference with the applicant ’ s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meani ng of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? If so, was that interference been lawful and justified ?