Communicated on 20 February 2014

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 52840/09 Blagoja MITEVSKI against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia lodged on 28 September 2009

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Blagoja Mitevski , is a Macedonian national, who was born in 1954 and lives in Skopje . He is represented before the Court by Mr J. Naumov , 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.

1. Background to the case

The applicant was employed by a socially owned company (“the employer”) registered in Belgrade, Serbia, during the time when the respondent State was part of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. However, during the entire time the applicant lived and worked on the territory of the respondent State where he still lives today.

On 10 January 1980 the employer and the local housing department in the respondent State ( Самоуправна интересна заедница на становањето на град Скопје ) (“the Housing Department”) concluded an agreement for the construction and purchase of an apartment located on the territory of the respondent State. On 15 April 1980 the employer decided to allocate the apartment to the applicant.

On 22 April 1981, the applicant , as a holder of a specially protected tenancy ( станарско право ) , concluded an agreement with the Housing Department on the basis of which he obtained the right to use ( право на користење ) the allocated apartment. On 23 April 1981 the employer paid the Housing Department the full price for the apartment.

On 8 July 1992, in the course of insolvency proceedings conducted before the Belgrade Commercial Court ( Privredni sud u Beogradu ), the employer ’ s assets, including the apartment allocated to the applicant, were transferred to the Development Fund of Serbia.

On 13 December 1995 the Skopje Court of First Instance (“the first ‑ instance court”) dismissed the applicant ’ s claim against the respondent State for the purchase of his apartment. The first-instance court established that in view of the outcome of the insolvency proceedings before the Belgrade Commercial Court in 1992, the owner of the apartment was the Development Fund of Serbia and not the respondent State, which could therefore not be sued ( пасивна легитимација ) . The court found that the apartment had not been registered by the respondent State as a socially owned apartment. It also stated that the applicant had to wait for the division of assets ( делбен би ланс ) between the respondent State and Serbia (the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia at that particular time) or, alternatively, to dispute the legal ground for the apartment ’ s transfer to the Development Fund of Serbia “before the competent court and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law ”. There is no information as to whether the applicant appealed against this judgment.

In 1997 the applicant discontinued the monthly tenancy fee (rent) payments ( станарина ) to the Housing Department which in the meantime was succeeded by the Public Company for the Management of State-owned Housing and Business Premises ( Јавно претпријатие за стопанисување со станбен и деловен простор на Република Македонија ) (“the Public Company”).

On 19 October 2000 the applicant concluded a purchase agreement and bought the apartment from the Development Fund of Serbia. The agreement was concluded on the basis of Serbia ’ s 1992 Housing Act. On the same day, the Development Fund of Serbia issued a certificate attesting that the applicant had settled the debt in full ( izmirio dugovanje u celosti ) and that he could register his ownership of the apartment.

On 29 March 2001 the Cadastral Office in Skopje, relying on the purchase agreement, registered the applicant ’ s ownership in the cadastral records.

On 19 September 2001 the first-instance court accepted a claim from the respondent State for unpaid rent in 1997 (from 15 January to 15 November). In its reasoning, the first-instance court concluded, inter alia , that the purchase agreement should be regarded as invalid ( невалиден ) and that the relevant entries in the cadastral records should be erased.

2. The impugned proceedings for payment of rent in 2000

On 22 February 2001 the public company lodged a request for an enforcement decision before the first-instance court for unpaid rent for seven months in 2000 (May to Nov ember), in the amount of 20,174 Macedonian d enars (approximately 350 euros ) to cover the main debt , plus statutory interest.

On 28 February the first-instance court approved the request . The applicant filed an objection and the case continued as a contentious dispute of minor value ( спор од мала вредност ).

On 13 May 2008 the first-instance court accepted the public company ’ s claim and ordered the applicant to pay the amount claimed plus interest. The first-instance court found that the transfer of the apartment ’ s ownership in 1992 from the employer to the Development Fund of Serbia had contravened the 1993 Act on the compliance of companies registered in the other Former Yugoslav Republics and performing economic activities in the respondent State ( Закон за начинот и постапката на усогласувањето на работењето на претпријатијата и другите правни лица кои вршат стопанска дејност на територијата на Република Македонија, а имаат седиште на територијата на другите републики на поранепна СФРЈ ) (“the Act”). Under section 8 of the Act, some transactions concerning property owned by the socially owned companies registered in other republics of former Yugoslavia but located on the territory of the respondent State, such as the apartments allocated to tenants holding a tenancy agreement, were frozen until a succession agreement for former Yugoslavia was concluded. The first-instance court also established that the applicant ’ s ownership of the apartment was uncontested ( неспорно ) , that the rent had to be recovered up to the time when the applicant had bought the apartment and that the applicant had not proved that he had paid the rent to the public company. The first-instance court decided that, in view of the applicant ’ s difficult financial situation , each party sh ould bear its own expenses for the proceedings.

The applicant appealed claiming , inter alia , that the State had lacked the legal capacity to claim the rent since it had not been the owner of the apartment. He further argued that he had bought the apartment from the Development Fund of Serbia as its genuine owner and that the rent for the whole period from 1991 until the date of purchase had been factored into the price that he had paid for the apartment . Therefore, in respect of the period from 1991 to 1997 he had paid the rent twice: to the respondent State and to the Development Fund of Serbia. He also argued that the first-instance court had disregarded the Supreme Court ’ s case-law on the matter (see “Relevant domestic law and practice” below).

On 9 March 2009 the Skopje Court of Appeal (“the second-instance court”) dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal and upheld the first-instance judgment. The second-instance court disregarded the applicant ’ s complaints concerning the facts as established by the first-instance court, since, in disputes of minor value, errors of fact did not constitute a valid ground for lodging an appeal. It confirmed that, bearing section 8 of the Act in mind, the employer had no right to enter into any transaction involving the apartment and the public company had had the right to dispose of and manage ( да располага и управува односно стопанисува ) the apartment until the conclusion of an agreement on the succession of former Yugoslavia. The second-instance court dismissed the complaint concerning judicial inconsistency, finding that the case-law of the Supreme Court relied on by the applicant was irrelevant since the subject matter of that dispute had been property law ( сопственосно-правен ) while the instant case concerned a contractual ( облигационо-правен ) relationship for the payment of rent.

On 5 May 2009 the applicant paid the main debt. There is no information as to the amount or the payment of statutory interest.

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

The Act was adopted in 1993 after a similar Government Decree of 13 February 1992 was quashed by the Constitutional Court on 3 June 1992.

Section 8 of the 1993 Act provides that until an agreement on succession, the companies from other former Yugoslav republics cannot dispose of their property on the territory of the respondent State if it is not used for their primary activity, but is leased or used in some other way.

In a judgment of 6 July 2006 the Supreme Court established that , irrespective of the limitations prescribed by the Act , once a holder of a specially protected tenancy purchased an apartment and had it in his possession, his property right had to be protected in accordance with Annex E of the former Yugoslavia Succession Agreement and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention of Human Rights.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that his right of property has been violated in view of the domestic courts ’ decisions concerning the payment of rent. He also complains under Article 6 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings .

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 § 1 of the Convention? In particular , was the length of the proceedings in accordance with the “reasonable time” requirement contained in this provision?

2. Has there been an interference with the applicant ’ s rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 with the courts ’ judgments ordering him to pay the rent claimed by the respondent State ? If so, was the interference lawful and proportionate?