CEDHCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 janvier 2023
- ECLI
- ECLI:CEDH:001-222860
- Date
- 3 janvier 2023
- Publication
- 3 janvier 2023
droits fondamentauxCEDH
Source : DILA / Judilibre · open data
Mes notes
privées · visibles par vous seulRésumé structuré
version préliminaireFaits
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Procédure
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Question juridique
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Solution
source officielleCommunicated
Résumé généré automatiquement — à vérifier avec la décision originale.
Analyse IA non disponible
Générez un résumé intelligent de cette décision
Texte intégral
.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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s66CE15DD { font-family:Arial; color:#242424 } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .sEBD0D88E { height:63.15pt } .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 } .sEBB5D88E { height:63.65pt } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sDD446575 { height:31.55pt } .sD257B28E { height:110.8pt } .sCD8FE8B1 { height:47.6pt } Published on 23 January 2023   SECOND SECTION Application no. 6381/20 PUCKO PETROL IMPORT-EXPORT DOOEL against North Macedonia and 4 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 3 January 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the non-enforcement of final judgments and decisions ordering a State-owned enterprise for national roads and motorways (applications nos. 38665/20, 15860/20 and 38176/20) and a State-run student dorm (applications nos. 6381/20 and 44819/20) 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 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.   38665/20) 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. 38665/20) 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. 38665/20) 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. Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth/Registration Place of Residence   Represented by 1. 6381/20 22/01/2020 PUCKO PETROL IMPORT-EXPORT DOOEL 1999 Plasnica Nikola DODEVSKI 2. 38665/20 27/08/2020 S.KOM DOOEL 2003 Skopje Zharko HADJI-ZAFIROV 3. 15860/20 12/02/2020 Elena NIKCHEVSKA 1982 Skopje Jasmina VASILKOVSKA 1979 Skopjе Dejan BOGDANOV   4. 38176/20 19/08/2020 AGROVOJVODINA-MEHANIZACIJA NS DOOEL 1998 Skopje 5. 44819/20 29/09/2020 SPECIAL PRODUCT DOOEL SKOPJE 2004 Skopje  Citations
Aucune citation répertoriée pour cette décision.
Décisions connexes
Aucune décision similaire identifiée pour le moment.
Synthèse
- Juridiction
- CEDH
- Chambre
- CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
- Date
- 3 janvier 2023
- Matière
- droits fondamentaux
Référence
ECLI:CEDH:001-222860
Données disponibles
- Texte intégral
- Résumé officiel