CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 septembre 2015

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left }     Communicated on 3 September 2015   FIRST SECTION Application no. 36303/10 C against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia lodged on 23 June 2010 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant is a public official who was born and lives in Skopje. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings, the non-enforcement of a final court judgment, the alleged lack of reasoning in the appellate court’s judgment of 3   December 2009 and the alleged judicial inconsistency. These proceedings concerned the applicant’s reassignment to different posts. 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 Skopje Court of First Instance’s judgment of 4   October 2007 enforced in practice? If not, was the non-enforcement of the decision compatible with the rights guaranteed under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?   2. Did the Skopje Court of Appeal’s judgment of 3   December 2009 contain sufficient reasons, in particular for departing from the previous case-law as alleged by the applicant? In this respect, the Government are invited to inform the Court about the case-law developments prior to that judgment.   3. Was the length of the proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?