CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 décembre 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s7ACB8D74 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt }   Communicated on 20 December 2017   FIRST SECTION Application no. 55427/14 Zoran MAKSIMOVSKI against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia lodged on 28 July 2014 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s dismissal from the office of public prosecutor for a serious violation of disciplinary rules. As specified in the Public Prosecution Act ( Закон за јавното обвинителство ) and the Act on State Board of Prosecutors ( Закон за Советот на јавни обвинители ), 1) the proceedings were set in motion by the State public prosecutor; 2) a five-member disciplinary commission set up by the State public prosecutor determined all questions of fact and law and made a ruling at first instance after holding a hearing in the applicant’s presence, and assessing the evidence; 3) on 3 February 2012 the State Board of Prosecutors, in which the State public prosecutor participated as an ex   officio member, considered the applicant’s appeal and decided the case at second instance; and 4) these decisions were subject to judicial review and confirmed by two levels of administrative courts, without holding of a hearing. 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, (a)     Was the absence of an oral hearing before the administrative courts in the proceedings regarding the applicant’s dismissal from the office of public prosecutor in breach of Article   6   §   1 of the Convention? Can the disciplinary commission be regarded as a “tribunal”, within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? (b)     Can the State Board of Prosecutors, which included the State public prosecutor as ex officio member, be regarded as an “independent and impartial tribunal” within the meaning of Article   6   §   1 of the Convention in view of the participation of the State public prosecutor in the proceedings concerning the decision of 3   February 2012 (see, mutatis mutandis , Jakšovski and Trifunovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , nos.   56381/09 and 58738/09, 7   January 2016 and Poposki and Duma v.   the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , nos.   69916/10 and 36531/11, 7   January 2016)?   2.     Was there a violation of the applicant’s right of property under Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention?