CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 26 mars 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA43C3626 { width:28.35pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s329183A { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:14pt; text-transform:uppercase } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sA10C00D6 { width:14.54pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s34E8CD41 { width:126.74pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s935FFEBF { width:7.54pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sDCEB1D12 { width:138.09pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s93249B53 { width:47.28%; margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s1700BEE8 { width:10.06%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .sA65EC630 { width:41.1%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sB9F6A0E9 { width:48.84%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sAAB46C33 { width:10.06%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s807D7942 { width:41.1%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5AF04CEA { width:48.84%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold }   SECOND SECTION DECISION Applications nos. 26795/21 and 54230/21 Dimitar BARBULOVSKI against North Macedonia (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 26   March 2026 as a Committee composed of:   Stéphane Pisani , President ,   Juha Lavapuro,   Hugh Mercer , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications against the Republic of North Macedonia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the dates indicated in the appended table, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The list of the applications, lodged by the same applicant, is set out in the appendix. The applicant was granted leave to represent himself in the proceedings before the Court, in accordance with Rule 36 § 2 in fine of the Rules of Court. In both applications, the applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the rejection of his objections to payment orders issued by notaries public for not having been submitted by lawyer, but by the applicant himself, had violated his right of access to court. The applicant’s complaints were communicated to the Government of North Macedonia (“the Government”), who submitted observations on the admissibility and merits. By a letter of 21 July 2025, the observations were forwarded to the applicant, who was invited to submit his own observations. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter. By a letter dated 26 September 2025, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations   had expired on 1   September 2025 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant’s attention was drawn to Article   37   §   1   (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. The applicant received the letter on 21   October 2025. However, no response followed. THE LAW Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. In the light of the foregoing, and in the absence of any special circumstances regarding respect for the rights guaranteed by the Convention and the Protocols thereto, the Court, in accordance with Article   37   §   1   (a) of the Convention, considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the applications. Accordingly, the cases should be struck out of the list. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases. Done in English and notified in writing on 16 April 2026.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Stéphane Pisani   Acting Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 of the Convention (access to a court) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth 1. 26795/21 14/05/2021 Dimitar BARBULOVSKI 1945 2. 54230/21 29/10/2021