CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 janvier 2017

.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 18 January 2017   FIRST SECTION Application no. 78689/14 Lile SMILKOVA and Zuica CUCKOVA against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia lodged on 17 December 2014 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicants, Ms Lile Smilkova and Ms Zuica Cuckova, are Macedonian nationals born in 1969 and 1963 respectively. They live in Štip. They are represented before the Court by Mr D. Simonovski, a lawyer practising in Skopje. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. As part of inheritance proceedings regarding the property of the late Z.N., the parties in the proceedings were instructed to initiate civil proceedings before a competent court in order to determine who owned a plot of agricultural land. The inheritance proceedings were stayed until the final resolution of the civil dispute. On 3 December 2010 N.N. lodged a property claim against seven people, including the applicants, with the Štip Court of First Instance. By this claim, N.N. sought to establish that the title of the plot of agricultural land had been transferred to him by Z.N. by way of a gift agreement. All the parties were Z.N.’s heirs. In the claim, the value of the dispute was set at 40,000 Macedonian denars (MKD). On 22 December 2010 the applicants responded to the claim. In their response, they maintained that the value of the claim was set too low and requested that the court increase the value accordingly. At a hearing before the Štip Court of First Instance, held on 3 June 2011, the claimant increased the value of the dispute to MKD 1,000,000. On 7 July 2011 the Štip Court of First Instance allowed the plaintiff’s claim against the applicants. It accepted the value of MKD 1,000,000 and, in respect of the court fees, instructed the plaintiff to submit an additional payment corresponding to the increased value of the claim. On 20 October 2011 the applicants lodged an appeal against the judgment of 7 July 2011. They paid court fees and requested legal expenses corresponding to a dispute value of MKD 1,000,000. On 1 March 2012 the Štip Court of Appeal remitted the case. On 29 June 2012 the Štip Court of First Instance allowed the plaintiff’s claim, restating that the value of the case was MKD 1,000,000. By that judgment, the court ordered legal expenses corresponding to a dispute value of MKD 1,000,000 to be paid by the applicants. On an unknown date the applicants appealed. In respect of the appeal, they again paid court fees corresponding to a dispute value of MKD 1,000,000. On 8 January 2013 the Štip Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance judgment. It did not specify a dispute value, but also upheld the decision as determined in the judgment of 29 June 2012 regarding court fees and legal expenses corresponding to a dispute value of MKD 1,000,000. On 27 March 2013 the applicants lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court. The value of the dispute stated on the appeal was MKD 1,000,000, and the court fees paid corresponded to this value. On 6 May 2014 the Supreme Court rejected the appeal on points of law as inadmissible ratione valoris . It stated that it could not accept the value of the dispute as being MKD 1,000,000, because the value had been changed “at an inappropriate stage of the proceedings”, and the initial value of MKD 40,000 fell short of the statutory threshold for a review by that court of the merits. COMPLAINTS The applicants complain under Article 6 of the Convention that the rejection of their appeal on points of law amounted to a deprivation of their right of access to the Supreme Court. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Have the applicants been denied their “right to a court” in the determination of their civil rights and obligations, in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the refusal of the Supreme Court to consider their appeal on points of law amount to a violation of this provision?