CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;FRA;FRE — 30 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 } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt }   Communicated on 30 January 2017   FIRST SECTION Application no. 60417/14 Vera ZENDELSKA against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia lodged on 29 August 2014 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Ms Vera Zendelska, is a Macedonian national who was born in 1951 and lives in Skopje. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. The applicant was an employee of the Ministry of Finance (“the Ministry”). Following disciplinary proceedings, on 18 June 2007 she was reassigned to a lower post with a lower salary. She appealed against the decision and had the case remitted. On 21 November 2007 the Minister of Finance issued a fresh decision sanctioning the applicant. The decision stated that the disciplinary reassignment would last for one year, during which period she would receive a lower salary. In accordance with the decision, following that period, she would be reinstated to her former position and salary. The sanction was set out in section 78 of the Civil Servants Act. The applicant did not appeal. After the one-year period had elapsed, the applicant sought to be reinstated, in accordance with the Minister’s decision. Instead, by a fresh decision, she was again assigned to the same, lower post. The applicant appealed and had the case remitted. As she was not able to get the Ministry to follow its own decision regarding the reinstatement, on 5 May 2011 the applicant lodged a civil action against the Ministry. She sought reinstatement and the payment of difference in salary and social benefits for the period during which she was supposed to have been reinstated (following the one-year reassignment). On 5 September 2011 the applicant agreed to be reassigned to a higher post and she dropped the action seeking reinstatement, at that point seeking only payment of the difference in salary arrears and benefits. On 9 May 2012 the Skopje Court of First Instance allowed in part her claim regarding the salary arrears. It held that the Ministry had been wrong to not reinstate the applicant after the one-year sanction had passed, and that she was owed her salary and benefits. Following an appeal by the Ministry, the case was remitted. On 25 April 2013 the Skopje Court of First Instance dismissed the applicant’s claim. It reasoned that, since the applicant had failed to appeal against the reassignment decision of 21 November 2007, she had failed to exhaust all remedies to protect her rights at that stage, thus failing to prove that the reassignment had been carried out in violation of domestic law. As a consequence, she had forfeited her right to seek salary arrears and benefits. The applicant appealed, but on 6 February 2014 the Skopje Court of Appeal upheld the decision of 25 April 2013, reiterating the same reasons. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that she was unjustly deprived of her salary arrears. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Is Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention applicable to the present case?   2.     If so, has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? Was that interference justified in terms of that provision?