FIRST SECTION

Application no. 48320/09 Krsto DEJANOVIK against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia lodged on 1 September 2009

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Krsto Dejanovik , is a Macedonian national, who was born in 1948 and lives in Kumanovo . He is represented before the Court by Mr J. Madžunarov , a lawyer practising in Štip .

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

On 13 September 2003 the applicant, the manager and sole owner of company K.K., brought a criminal complaint before Skopje public prosecutor ’ s office charging G.C. with fraud committed allegedly in April 2002. On 18 January 2005 the public prosecutor filed an indictment against G.C.

On 7 June 2005 Skopje Court of First Instance (“the trial court”) found G.C. guilty and imposed a fine in the amount of 60,000 Macedonian denars (MKD) (equivalent to 1,000 euros (EUR)). It granted also the applicant ’ s compensation claim and ordered G.C. to pay MKD 1,199,744 (equivalent to nearly EUR 20, 000).

On 23 November 2005 Skopje Court of Appeal confirmed the trial court ’ s judgment regarding G.C. ’ s conviction and the penalty imposed. The judgment became, in that part, final. The court, however, quashed the trial court ’ s judgment in respect of the applicant ’ s compensation claim.

On 16 January 2006 the trial court again granted the applicant ’ s claim awarding him compensation in the same amount as specified above. On 24 May 2006 Skopje Court of Appeal allowed G.C. ’ s appeal and remitted the case for fresh consideration. It instructed the trial court to consider all evidence relevant for the applicant ’ s compensation claim at a public hearing in the presence of G.C. and his lawyer.

On 15 December 2006 the trial court ordered, for the third time, that G.C. reimburses the applicant the same amount specified in its previous judgments. On 16 May 2007 Skopje Court of Appeal dismissed G.C. ’ s appeal and confirmed the trial court ’ s judgment.

On 10 August 2007 the applicant requested enforcement of the judgment by a bailiff. On 3 September 2007 the bailiff ordered enforcement by way of public sale of an immovable property owned by G.C. After the latter ’ s wife had claimed successfully title to one notional half of the property, a public auction was held on 27 March 2008 on which the property was sold to certain I.A. Due to failure of the buyer to pay the price, on 22 January 2009 the transaction was declared invalid.

On 25 December 2008 the public prosecutor submitted a request for the protection of legality ( барање за заштита на законитоста ) in respect of the trial court ’ s judgments of 7 June 2005 and 15 December 2006 and the judgments of Skopje Court of Appeal da ted 23 November 2005 and 16 May 2007.

On 4 February 2009 the Supreme Court upheld the legality review request and remitted the case for fresh consideration. The court held that the lower courts had not established relevant facts for G.C. ’ s criminal liability. The applicant stated that he had been served with that judgment on 25 March 2009.

On 11 June 2009 the trial court terminated ( запира ) the criminal proceedings against G.C. since the prosecution had become time-barred. It further advised the applicant that he could claim compensation by means of a separate civil action before the civil courts. The applicant did not appeal against that decision.

During the proceedings, the applicant complained to several institutions about the manner in which the impugned proceedings had been carried out.

COMPLAINTS

In the first letter, the applicant complains, without invoking any Article of the Convention, that judges were biased and that the criminal proceedings lasted too long. In the application submitted on 4 November 2009, the applicant alleges under Article 6 of the Convention that the proceedings were unfair. In this connection he complains that the principle of equality of arms was violated, that judges lacked the required impartiality and did not decide his compensation claim and that the length of the proceedings was excessive. He also complains under Article 13 that he did not have an effective remedy against the remittals ordered during the proceedings.

QUESTION S 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, did the criminal courts ’ failure to decide on the applicant ’ s compensation claim amount to a breach of his right of access to a court (see Boris Stojanovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no. 41196/06 , 6 May 2010 ) ?