CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 octobre 2016

.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 } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt }   Communicated on 17 October 2016   FIRST SECTION Application no. 56273/14 Toni SEDLOVSKI against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia lodged on 4 August 2014 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Toni Sedlovski, is a Macedonian national who was born in 1967 and lives in Prilep. He is represented before the Court by Mr   I.   Nikoloski, a lawyer practising in Prilep. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. In 2007 G.S., the applicant’s former wife, lodged a civil action against him to claim her entitlement to a share of a house they owned together in Prilep. Following a remittal, on 14 October 2011 the Prilep Court of First Instance partially allowed the claim. Although initially undetermined, the plaintiff later set the value of the dispute at MKD 1,000,000 (around EUR   16,200). On 25 November 2011 the applicant lodged an appeal, in which he referred to the dispute value as MKD 204,600. Bitola Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal, holding that the value of the dispute was MKD 1,000,000. On an unspecified date the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court, in which he noted the already accepted value of the dispute as MKD 1,000,000. On 23 January 2014 the Supreme Court rejected the appeal on points of law as inadmissible ratione valoris , holding that the increase in value had been done in violation of the Civil Procedure Code, and therefore that the value of the dispute fell short of the statutory threshold of MKD 500,000 (around EUR 8,100). The court also found that the amount of court fees paid by the plaintiff corresponded to a dispute value of MKD 40,000. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention that the rejection of his appeal on points of law amounted to a deprivation of his right of access to the Supreme Court. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has the applicant been denied, in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the “right to a court” in the determination of his civil rights and obligations? In particular, did the refusal of the Supreme Court to consider his appeal on points of law amount to a violation of this provision?