5.  The applicant was born in 1945 and lives in Bitola. 6.  On 2 December 2002 an article was published in the daily newspaper Utrinski Vesnik entitled “The uncle was stealing, Jovan was standing guard” (Вујкото крадел, Јован чувал стража). A reference to the article appeared on the front page of the newspaper. The text of the article read, in so far as relevant, as follows:
“Risto Popovski, uncle of dismissed bishop J. and owner of the company Voskresenie from Bitola, together with seven boys, entered the courtyard of St. Spas church in Gevgelija and continued towards the church garage. The uncle started the engine of the tractor [inside] and drove it out of the courtyard, while his helpers warned the church housekeeper, who was upset, to step aside. During the violent disturbance, the dismissed bishop Jovan drove around waiting for the outcome...
... On the basis of an anonymous tip-off concerning the break-in, police stopped the tractor from leaving Gevgelija. The owner of Voskresenie, [the applicant], produced documents [showing] that Voskresenie owned the tractor! Only dismissed bishop Jovan knew how the tractor, which was a donation by Japan to Gevgelija’s church co-operative, happened to belong to a private company from Bitola ... (R.P.)” 7.  The applicant submitted a letter to the newspaper the next day, in which he requested that it publish a retraction given the false allegations that he had stolen the tractor. In this connection he submitted a copy of a certificate issued by the Ministry of the Interior confirming that the tractor had been returned to him. He alleged that in the absence of a retraction, he would be perceived as a criminal in Bitola, a small town where people knew each other. The newspaper did not publish anything in this regard. 8.  On 31 December 2002 and after several verbal requests, the applicant submitted a letter to the newspaper seeking information about the identity of the journalist (R.P.), whose initials appeared at the end of the article. 9.  On 31 January (as alleged by the applicant) or 4 February 2003 (according to the Government) the applicant brought private criminal charges for defamation under sections 16(1) and (2) and 417(1) of the Criminal Proceedings Act, which was an offence punishable under section 172(2) of the Criminal Code (see paragraphs 27, 31 and 38 below). The complaint was made against B.T., editor-in-chief of the newspaper and R.P., the journalist responsible. The applicant claimed that the article had disgraced him and his family and said that he was seeking compensation for non-pecuniary loss, the amount of which was to be specified, as stated in the complaint, at the hearing. 10.  On 31 March and 16 April 2003 respectively the Skopje Court of First Instance (“the trial court”) requested that the applicant complete the complaint by providing information about the identity of R.P., describing the actions imputable to the accused and submitting an original of the article. In reply, the applicant specified his complaint and informed the trial court that all his attempts to get the newspaper to reveal the identity of the journalist responsible had been to no avail. 11.  During the proceedings the applicant was represented by a lawyer practicing in Bitola. The applicant alleged (without providing any evidence in support) that the first hearing had been scheduled for 23 September 2003; however, the parties agreed that between 10 October 2003 and 16 January 2007, the trial court had fixed twenty-three hearings, of which twenty were adjourned owing to the absence of either B.T., his representative or the journalist responsible. The trial court made several unsuccessful attempts to secure B.T.’s attendance with the assistance of the police. The applicant or his representative attended all the hearings scheduled. 12.  At a hearing on 6 September 2005, the trial court requested that the newspaper reveal the identity of R.P., the presumed author of the article. In the absence of any reply from the newspaper, the trial court made the same request on 18 October and 24 November 2005, as well as on 24 January 2006, but they were never answered. 13.  At a hearing on 7 March 2006, B.T. admitted that he had allowed the article to be published and requested additional time to identify the journalist who had written it. In a statement given on 25 April 2006, the applicant avowed that the article in question had contained defamatory allegations portraying him as a thief, which had had a significant negative impact on his personal and family life. In this connection he argued that his wife had closed her private medical practice since her office had been covered with writings describing them as “thieves” (арамии). He also alleged that his children had encountered difficulties in school due to the defamatory article. 14.  At a hearing on 29 June 2006, B.T. stated that according to the newspaper’s records, the author of the text had been a certain K.J, who had confirmed as much in a telephone conversation with him. The court ordered that K.J. be summoned to the next hearing. His home address was to be obtained with the assistance of the police. 15.  K.J. did not attend any of the four hearings scheduled between 19 September 2006 and 16 January 2007, despite the fact that the court had summoned him to do so. At the January hearing, the trial court stayed (запира) the proceedings because the prosecution had become time-barred. It also ordered each party to bear its own costs and expenses incurred in the proceedings. On 1 March 2007 the Skopje Court of Appeal upheld the judgment, which was served on the applicant on 24 March 2007. 16.  During the proceedings, the applicant addressed the trial judge and the president of the trial court on two occasions, complaining about the way in which the trial had been conducted and alerting them to the possibility that the prosecution might become time-barred. 17.  The relevant parts of the above Resolution read as follows:
“6. Anti-defamation laws pursue the legitimate aim of protecting the reputation and rights of others. The Assembly nonetheless urges member states to apply these laws with the utmost restraint since they can seriously infringe freedom of expression ... 8. The Assembly deplores the fact that in a number of member states prosecution for defamation is misused in what could be seen as attempts by the authorities to silence media criticism ... 13. The Assembly consequently takes the view that prison sentences for defamation should be abolished without further delay. In particular it exhorts states whose laws still provide for prison sentences – although prison sentences are not actually imposed – to abolish them without delay so as not to give any excuse, however unjustified, to those countries which continue to impose them, thus provoking a corrosion of fundamental freedoms ... 17.2. guarantee that there is no misuse of criminal prosecutions for defamation and safeguard the independence of prosecutors in these cases; 17.3. define the concept of defamation more precisely in their legislation so as to avoid an arbitrary application of the law and to ensure that civil law provides effective protection of the dignity of persons affected by defamation ...”