AD OSIGURITELNA POLISA SKOPJE AND OTHERS v. NORTH MACEDONIA and 7 other applications
Doc ref: 62544/19;6430/20;7307/20;38181/20;38659/20;44331/20;48373/20;49268/20 • ECHR ID: 001-222859
Document date: January 3, 2023
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 5
Published on 23 January 2023
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 62544/19 AD OSIGURITELNA POLISA SKOPJE and Others against North Macedonia and 7 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 3 January 2023
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applications concern non-enforcement of final judgments and decisions ordering a State-owned enterprise for national roads and motorways (applications nos. 62544/19, 6430/20, 7307/20, 38181/20, 38659/20 and 49268/20), a State-run student dorm (application no. 44331/20) and a municipality (application no. 48373/20) to pay the applicants different amounts of money.
The President of the Skopje Court of First Instance found in separate decisions that a final decision against the above debtors (except the municipality for which no such decision was adopted) can be executed only on the surplus of assets exceeding the amount of minimum indispensable assets necessary for the performance of their duties (established by an expert report).
The applicants complain under Articles 6 § 1 (except in application no. 38659/20) and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 thereto about the non-enforcement of the final judgments and decisions in their favour and about the lack of an effective remedy to challenge the decisions of the trial court’s president.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has there been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (except in application no. 38659/20) and/or Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention on account of the applicants’ inability to enforce the final judgments and decisions in their favour (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC], no. 22774/93, §§ 44-59 and 62-75, ECHR 1999-V; Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, §§ 34-38 and 40-42, ECHR 2002-III; Burdov v. Russia (no. 2) , no. 33509/04, §§ 65-70 and 86-88, ECHR 2009, and Kuzhelev and Others v. Russia , nos. 64098/09 and 6 others, §§ 109-110, 15 October 2019)? In this connection, were the decisions by the President of the Skopje Court of First Instance compatible with the requirements of these Articles of the Convention?
2. Did the applicants have at their disposal effective domestic remedies for their complaints under Article 6 (except in application no. 38659/20) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention (see Burdov v. Russia (no. 2) , no. 33509/04, §§ 96-117 , ECHR 2009)?
APPENDIX
List of applications
No.
Application no.
Case name
Lodged on
Applicant Year/Place of registration
Represented by
1.
62544/19
AD Osiguritelna Polisa Skopje and Others v. North Macedonia
25/11/2019
AD OSIGURITELNA POLISA SKOPJE
2005 Skopje TRIGLAV OSIGURUVANJE AD SKOPJE 1993 Skopje MACEDONIA SKOPJE VIENA INSURANCE GROUP 1945 Skopje CROATIA OSIGURUVANJE AD 2009 Skopje JSARGO DOOEL SKOPJE 2003 Skopje TEHNOKAR SASHO DOOEL SKOPJE 1998 Skopje
Dejan BOGDANOV
2.
6430/20
Granit AD Skopje and Others v. North Macedonia
14/01/2020
GRANIT AD SKOPJE 1952
Skopje
EVROINS OSIGURUVANJE AD SKOPJE 1995 Skopje
WINNER VIENA INSURANCE GROUP SKOPJE 2002 Skopje
EUROLINK OSIGURUVANJE AD SKOPJE 2002 Skopje
3.
7307/20
Karposh Factory AD v. North Macedonia
28/01/2020
KARPOSH FACTORY AD
2006 Skopje
4.
38181/20
Beton AD Skopje v. North Macedonia
19/08/2020
BETON AD SKOPJE
1995 Skopje
5.
44331/20
Didaks Dooel Skopje v. North Macedonia
23/09/2020
DIDAKS DOOEL SKOPJE 1994 Skopje
6.
48373/20
Beton AD Skopje v. North Macedonia
22/10/2020
BETON AD SKOPJE
1995 Skopje
7.
49268/20
Kargomaks Dooel Miladinovci Ilinden v. North Macedonia
22/10/2020
KARGOMAKS DOOEL MILADINOVCI ILINDEN
2007 Ilinden
8.
38659/20
Bomarski Dooel export-import Skopje v. North Macedonia
22/08/2020
BOMARSKI DOOEL EXPORT-IMPORT SKOPJE
2017 Skopje
Zharko HADJI-ZAFIROV