CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 novembre 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 28 November 2016   FIRST SECTION Application no. 17828/15 Dusko ČANGOV against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia lodged on 7 April 2015 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the domestic courts’ dismissal of the applicant’s claim as withdrawn owing to his absence from the hearing before the Skopje Court of First Instance.   A hearing was initially scheduled for 27   November   2013, the date being subsequently declared non-working day (“Tree Day”) by the Government. On 29 November 2013 the Government announced that 30 November 2013 (Saturday) would be a working day so as to make up for the Tree Day. On 30 November 2013 the court held a hearing without informing the applicant. Given his absence, the court dismissed the claim as withdrawn and ordered him to cover the defendant’s trial costs. The applicant’s request for re-instatement of the proceedings in which he argued that he had not been informed of the date and time of the hearing was dismissed by a final decision of the Skopje Court of Appeal that the applicant received on 15 October 2014. QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Having regard to the Skopje Court of First Instance’s decision to declare the applicant’s claim withdrawn given his absence from the hearing of 30 November 2013 of which he was not informed by the court, was he denied the right of access to a court, in breach of Article 6 §   1 of the Convention?