Communicated on 10 June 2015

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 14466/11 Ismet BAJRAMOVSKI against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia lodged on 25 February 2011

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Ismet Bajramovski , is a Macedonian national, who was born in 1955 and lives in Schötz , Switzerland . He is represented before the Court by Mr E. Glavinče , a lawyer practising in Bitola .

A. The circumstances of the case

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

The case concerns civil proceedings for recognition of a title to a house and a courtyard that the applicant initiated before the Kičevo Court of First Instance (“the first-instance court”), against Mr A.L. and Mr H.L. The former was a judge in the first-instance court at the time when the proceedings were initiated.

On an unspecified date, the chairman of the panel that adjudicated the applicant ’ s case at first instance withdrew. The president of the first-instance court requested that the president of the Gostivar Court of Appeal (“the second-instance court”) assign another Court of First Instance to decide the case. There is no information in the case-file as to the outcome of those proceedings.

On 3 December 2008 the first-instance court dismissed the applicant ’ s claim. The applicant appealed.

On an unspecified date, the applicant requested that the Supreme Court assign another second-instance court competent to decide the case instead of the appellate court. He argued that two judges of the first-instance court, former colleagues of Mr A.L., sat as judges in the Gostivar second-instance court and expressed doubts as to the impartiality of that court. On 5 March 2009 the Supreme Court dismissed the request finding that the reason put forward by the applicant was irrelevant and could not lead to assignment of another appellate court.

On 6 July 2010 the second-instance court dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal and confirmed the first-instance judgment.

The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law, in which in t er alia he referred to his request to the Supreme Court for assignment of another second-instance court, as well as to the withdrawal of the adjudicating judge of the first-instance court and its president ’ s request that a different court be appointed to take over the case.

On 29 March 2012 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal on points of law without explicitly addressing the applicant ’ s concerns concerning the alleged lack of impartiality of the lower courts.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention about the lack of impartiality of the first- and second-instance courts given that the applicant ’ s opponent was a judge in the first-instance court and that two judges of the first-instance court became judges of the second-instance court which decided the applicant ’ s appeal . He also complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

QUESTIONs TO THE PARTIES

1. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations , in accordance with Article 6 of the Convention? In particular, were the first- and second-instance courts i mpartial, as required by Article 6 of the Convention?

2. Was there a violation of the applicant ’ s right under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?