CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 mars 2025

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Published on 24 March 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 32819/22 Marjan CVETANOSKI against North Macedonia lodged on 28 June 2022 communicated on 6 March 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns non-enforcement of a final judgment ordering a State-owned enterprise for national roads and motorways as the debtor to pay the applicant 125,000 Macedonian denars (approximately 2,100 euros) in damages. The final judgment in the applicant’s favour was adopted on 11   May 2022. Between April and December 2012, in proceedings which the above debtor had instituted against some other creditors, several decisions were adopted by the President of the Skopje Court of First Instance with an erga omnes effect towards all its creditors, finding that a final decision against the debtor could only be executed if it had a surplus of assets, exceeding the amount of minimum indispensable assets necessary for the performance of its duties. The amount of indispensable assets was established based on expert reports submitted by the debtor. The applicant was not a party to those proceedings. The debtor never reported sufficient assets and, consequently, the judgment taken in the applicant’s favour remains unenforced. The applicant complains about the fairness of the above proceedings and the inability to enforce the judgment. He relies on Article 6 of the Convention.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and/or Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention on account of the applicant’s inability to enforce a final judgment in his favour (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC], no. 22774/93, §§ 49 and 74, 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, ECHR 2009; and Kuzhelev and Others v. Russia , nos. 64098/09 and 6 others, §§ 109-10, 15 October 2019)?