Communicated on 25 August 2014

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 29430/09 Gorgi VELJANOV and others against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia lodged on 22 May 2009

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicants, Mr Gorgi Veljanov (“the first applicant), Ljup č o Veljanov (“the second applicant) and Cvetanka Veljanova (“the third applicant), are Macedonian nationals who were born in 1960, 1955 and 1927 respectively and live in Bitola. The first and the second applicants are brothers and the third applicant is their mother.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

1. Background to the case

In 1997 a private saving house “TAT”, went bankrupt. “TAT” had its seat in the city of Bitola, where most of its operations and clients were concentrated. Bankruptcy proceedings were opened against it before the Bitola Court of First Instance (“the first-instance court”).

In the course of the bankruptcy proceedings, saving deposits of the first and of third applicants, as well as of T.V. (their father and husband respectively) had been contested by “TAT”. The first-instance court instructed the applicants to initiate, within 30 day time-limit, civil proceedings against “TAT”, in order to have their claim recognised.

2. The impugned civil proceedings

On 8 November 2000 the first and third applicants, together with T.V., initiated civil proceedings against “TAT” before the first-instance court. The second applicant was the representative of his parents, i.e. of the third applicant and T.V.

On 15 April 2008 the first and the second applicant were late for a hearing scheduled before the first-instance court. When they arrived in the court room, allegedly three minutes after the scheduled time, the first ‑ instance court, sitting in a panel presided by judge S.R., had already concluded in a court record that in view of the applicants ’ absence, their claim was considered withdrawn. In this connection the first-instance court issued a decision of the same date that contained an instruction about the possibility to lodge an appeal.

On the same date the applicants requested procedural reinstatement ( restitutio in integrum ) arguing that they had been prevented on health grounds to timely appear before the first-instance court. They substantiated their request with a medical documentation of the same date. They expressed their will to continue with the proceedings and to have their claim decided.

On 7 May 2008 judge S.R as a president of the panel, after holding a hearing, dismissed the applicants ’ request. The decision states that on 15 April 2008 when the applicants appeared before the court later than the scheduled time, they had not mentioned any medical problems. The decision further states that the medical documentation was incomprehensible, that the time when the applicants had visited the doctor had not been specified, that it was not probable that both of them got sick in the same time and that the first applicant had addressed judge S.R. saying “God will punish you!”.

The applicants appealed claiming that when they reached the court room only three minutes later, the decision finding their claim withdrawn had already been entered in the minutes, meaning that the hearing had started earlier. They submitted that their health deteriorated just before the hearing time and that they had to visit their family doctor who had issued valid medical documentation. They stated that the first-instance court ’ s decision had made a reference only to their bitter comment without providing a complete account of the situation. They further submitted that the first ‑ instance court must not have relied on probabilities and that in view of S.R. ’ s obvious bias, the case had to be remitted for fresh consideration before a different judge.

On 12 November 2008 the Bitola Court of Appeal dismissed the applicants ’ appeal. It reiterated the findings of the first-instance court.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complain under Article 6 of the Convention about access to court and about the length of the civil proceedings.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Can the second applicant claim to be a victim of a violation of the Convention, within the meaning of Article 34?

2. Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of their civil rights, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular:

(a) Has the first-instance court ’ s decision considering the applicants ’ claim withdrawn limited the applicants ’ right of access to court under this Article? If so, was that limitation in contravention to this Article?

(b) Was the length of the civil proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?