Communicated on 2 September 2019

FIRST SECTION

Applications nos. 22078/17 and 22530/17 TEHNO-INTEREKSPORT DUSHKO DOOEL against North Macedonia lodged on 3 March 2017

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The applications concern civil proceedings in which the applicant company sought damages from the State. The claim was declared withdrawn following the applicant company ’ s unsuccessful attempt to obtain a postponement regarding the payment of its court fees on the basis of temporary insolvency. The domestic courts held that legal persons could not benefit from a postponement on the basis of insolvency, since under domestic law that right was reserved for private individuals only.

The applicant company then lodged a civil claim relying on domestic anti-discrimination legislation. The courts rejected the claim, since from the grounds given by the applicant company they concluded that it did not seek protection against discrimination, but rather the repeal of the relevant sections of domestic law prohibiting the postponement of court fees for legal persons, a matter which fell outside of their jurisdiction.

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

1. Was the applicant company deprived of the right of access to a court, as guaranteed in Article 6 of the Convention, on account of the domestic courts ’ refusal of its request to postpone the payment of court fees?

2. Has the applicant company exhausted all domestic remedies in respect of its complaints concerning Article 14 in conjunction with Article 6 and/or Article 1 of Protocol No. 12? In particular, would a civil claim for protection against discrimination lodged in accordance with domestic law, be available to the applicant company, given its insolvency?

3 . In the event that there was no effective remedy available to be exhausted in the circumstances of the instant case, has the applicant company suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of its Convention rights, contrary to Article 14 read in conjunction with Article 6 of the Convention and/or Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 , given the domestic courts ’ refusal to postpone the payment of the court fees?

4. Has there been an interference with the applicant company ’ s peaceful enjoyment of possessions? If so, was it compatible with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?

No.

Application no.

Firstname LASTNAME

Place of residence

Representative

1.

22078/17

TEHNO-INTEREKSPORT DUSHKO DOOEL

Skopje

A. Vasilev

2.

22530/17

TEHNO-INTEREKSPORT DUSHKO DOOEL

Skopje

A. Vasilev