Case P.no.612/01 processed by the Basic Court in Tetovo for terminating the buying and selling agreement of fixed assets between Tetovo Tabak AD Skopje represented by the Director Sretko Gjurcinovski as a sales party and Makedonija 2000 DOO Export Import represented by the proxy holder Bozidar Gjorgjievski as a buyer.

The judiciary council constituted of one judge and two jurors conveyed the case.

The parties had proxy holders being lawyers and during the process their right for defence was respected .

The legal suit regarding this case was submitted on 10.09.2001 and on 17.09.2001 it was delivered to the accused. The verdict was once annulled and returned to the first-degree proceeding along with the Appellate Court decision on 20.02.2003 and related to the appeal on behalf of the accused.

During the process the principle of publicity was fully respected and the observers had unconstrained access to the trails and case materials both by the judge and by the court administration.

During the entire procedure, the President of the court exempted two judges. The first one was exempted on the request of the accused and in accordance to the Article 65 point 6 from the Law on Civil Procedure for being close relative to the plaintiff. The second judge was exempted on the grounds of being closely related with the parties in the process.

The case was adjourned 17 times and it can be stated that the most frequent reasons were the requests by the parties in the process or their proxy holders; than, the failure to be present at the trial; irregular delivery of court summons which occurred 6 times as a reason for postponement of the main hearing, whereas for two hearings adjournment occurred on behalf of the courts. due to the main hearing delays, may be concluded that at two hearings the parties and their proxy holders were not present at the trial although regularly summoned.

On 30.03.2004 the court reached a verdict immediately after concluding the main hearing, and the file was in the repository on 29.06.2004 to be delivered to the parties.

Apart from certain omissions regarding the reasons for trial postponement, and the 90 days duration for reaching the verdict until the verdict is delivered to the parties in the process (which is an infringement to the principle trial in reasonable time according to the Article 6 from the European Convention for Human Rights), no other breaches were concluded to be committed regarding the international standards for fair trial.