CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 janvier 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s65E06E64 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s66CE15DD { font-family:Arial; color:#242424 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } 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