Communicated on 16 March 2015

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 25300/11 Kosta MARKOVSKI against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia lodged on 15 April 2011

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Kosta Markovski , is a Macedonian national, who was born in 1956 and lives in Skopje . He is represented before the Court by Mr S. Gerovski , a lawyer practising in Skopje .

A. The circumstances of the case

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

On 2 January 2009 the applicant initiated labour proceedings before the Skopje Court of First Instance (“the first-instance court”) challenging his employer ’ s decision on his re-assignment.

On 25 September 2009 the first-instance court accepted the applicant ’ s claim and annulled the decision on his re-assignment.

On 22 October 2009 the employer lodged an appeal against the first-instance judgment.

On 6 November 2009 (Friday) the appeal was served to the applicant who in turn, on 16 November 2009 (Monday) lodged with the first-instance court observations in reply to the employer ’ s appeal.

On 16 October 2010 the Skopje Court of Appeal (“the second-instance court”) accepted the employer ’ s appeal, reversed the first-instance court ’ s judgment and dismissed the applicant ’ s claim finding that the decision on his re-assignment was lawful. The second-instance court established that “no observations in reply to the appeal were lodged” by the applicant ( одговор на жалбата не е доставен ) .

B. Relevant domestic law

Section 104 of the 2005 Civil Proceedings Act stipulates that when a time-limit expires on a Sunday, public holiday or other non-working day for the court, the time-limit would be extended until the first working day.

Section 348 stipulates that the first-instance court shall communicate to the other party a timely, complete and admissible appeal. That party can in turn, within eight days from the service of the appeal, lodge observations in reply to the appeal. Belated observations a re not to be rejected, but they are to be forwarded to the second-instance court for consideration, if possible.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention about lack of adversariness because the second-instance court disregarded hi s observations submitted in reply to the employer ’ s appeal .

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 given the opportunity to effectively argue his case given the second-instance court ’ s finding that he had not lodged observations in reply to the opponent ’ s appeal (see Ruiz- Mateos v. Spain , 23 June 1993, § 63, Series A no. 262, Nideröst -Huber v. Switzerland , 18 February 1997, § 24, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997 ‑ I ) ?