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 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 24 March 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 42938/23 Anita SHOJLEVA against North Macedonia lodged on 5 December 2023 communicated on 6 March 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns non-enforcement of a final judgment ordering a municipality and a public utility company to pay jointly the applicant 70,000   Macedonian denars (approximately 1,150 euros) in damages. The final judgment in the applicant’s favour was taken on 30   September 2021. On 17 April 2012 the President of the Struga Court of First Instance, in proceedings which the municipality had instituted against another creditor, adopted a decision with an erga omnes effect towards all its creditors, finding that a final decision against the municipality could be executed only if it had a surplus of assets, exceeding the indispensable minimum amount 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. On 18 January 2023 an identical decision was adopted at the request of the public utility company. The applicant was a party to these proceedings and had the right to appeal against the decision but did not do so. The debtors never reported sufficient assets and, consequently the judgment in the applicant’s favour remains unenforced. The applicant complains, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and/or Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 thereto, about the non-enforcement of a final judgment in her favour. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? In this connection, was an appeal against the decision of the President of the Struga Court of First Instance of 18 January 2023 an effective remedy in the circumstances, in particular in respect of the proceedings instituted by the public utility company to which the applicant was a party?   2.     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 her 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)?