Communicated on 29 April 2019

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 6035/17 NDI S.A . against North Macedonia lodged on 13 January 2017

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the domestic courts ’ refusal to allow the recognition of a final arbitration award delivered by the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Court of Arbitration in favour of the applicant, a company registered in Poland, against a company seated in North Macedonia. The domestic courts, on two levels, refused to allow the recognition of the award, holding that one of the members of the arbitration court panel had lacked the requisite impartiality and that no evidence had been submitted that the arbitration award had become final. That decision was taken notwithstanding that the applicant company had submitted a separate decision by the ICC Court of Arbitration dismissing the same arguments concerning lack of impartiality of the same member of the arbitration panel and a certificate attesting to the award becoming final.

Upon receiving the decision of Skopje Court of Appeal and learning of the composition of its panel, the applicant company requested reopening of the proceedings for recognition claiming that the husband of a member of that panel had shares of significant value in the respondent company, where he was also employed. The request was dismissed on the basis that no new facts were presented to the court in order to justify a reopening.

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

1. Is Article 6 of the Convention applicable to the proceedings before the domestic courts regarding the recognition of the arbitration award?

2. If so, d id the applicant company have a fair hearing in the determination of its civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

3. Did the domestic courts provide sufficient reasons for their decision to refuse the recognition of the arbitration award, as required under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

4. Was the panel of the Skopje Court of Appeal impartial, as required under Article 6 of the Convention?

5. Has there been an interference with the applicant company ’ s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and did it impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant company?