CASE OF PETRESKA v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"
Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)
Aleš Pejchal;Ledi Bianku;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paul Mahoney;Pauliine Koskelo;Robert Spano
5. The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Skopje. 6. The applicant was employed by the State Intelligence Agency (Агенција за разузнавање, “the employer”). 7. On 28 February 2001 she was dismissed from work as redundant given that internal regulations (Правилник за систематизација на работните места, “the Regulations”) of 27 February 2001 provided for reduced number of employees for posts such as the post held by the applicant. 8. On 9 April 2001 the applicant challenged her dismissal before the Skopje Court of First Instance (“the first-instance court”). 9. After three remittal orders, on 29 November 2005 the first-instance court dismissed the applicant’s claim, finding that she had been dismissed on 28 February 2001 on the basis of the Regulations, which had been adopted by the employer and approved by the Government on 27 February 2001. It further found that the Government’s approval had been received by the employer on 2 March 2001, but that had been irrelevant given that it was only the date when approval had been given by the Government that was important for the entry into force of the Regulations. 10. On 14 December 2005 the applicant appealed, arguing inter alia that the Regulations could not have applied to her case, as it could only be adopted after the employer had received the Government’s approval. The applicant relied on another final judgment of the Skopje Court of Appeal (“the appellate court”) in a similar case concerning a former colleague of the applicant, in which it had been established that the Regulations had not entered into force at the time of the dismissal (see paragraph 17 below). She contended that under the relevant law (see paragraph 16 below) the Regulations could only be adopted after the Government’s approval had been obtained. 11. On 23 February 2006 the appellate court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. It found that the Government had approved the Regulations on 27 February 2001, that they had entered into force the same day, and that the applicant’s dismissal of 28 February 2001 was therefore lawful. 12. On 7 April 2006 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court. In it she argued, inter alia, that the Regulations could only be adopted after the Government’s approval had been obtained, and that they had thus not entered into force at the time of her dismissal. She referred to the earlier judgment of the appellate court (see paragraph 17 below), and argued that it had deviated from its established practice on the matter without providing any reasons. She further contended that the dismissal of her former colleagues, which had been based on the same grounds, had been quashed and they had been reinstated to their posts. 13. On 25 October 2007 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law. It found that on 27 February 2001 the Government had approved the Regulations, which had thus entered into force the same day. On 15 January 2008 the applicant was served with the Supreme Court’s judgment.