CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 janvier 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 26 January 2026   SECOND SECTION Application no. 19670/21 MACEDONIA SKOPJE - VIENNA INSURANCE GROUP against North Macedonia lodged on 12 April 2021 communicated on 6 January 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant company’s claim for unjust enrichment against X. The applicant company is an insurance company. On 2 February 2006 the first-instance court allowed an insurance claim lodged against it by X on account of his parent’s death. The court awarded X a total amount of 1,150,000 Macedonian denar ((MKD), approximately 18,600 euros (EUR)). That amount included an award in respect of non-pecuniary damage in the amount of MKD 1,050,000 (approximately EUR   17,000). On 13   March 2008 the first-instance decision was confirmed by the second-instance court. On 15   April 2008 the applicant company lodged an appeal on points of law. In the meantime, X instituted enforcement proceedings and the applicant company paid him the entire amount which had been awarded. On 28 May 2009 the Supreme Court upheld the applicant company’s appeal on points of law in part. It held that the amount of the non-pecuniary damage was too high and lowered it to MKD   350,000 (approximately EUR   5,600). Following the decision of the Supreme Court, the applicant company initiated proceedings for unjust enrichment against X, claiming the difference between the amount awarded in respect of non-pecuniary damage which had been paid out to him (MKD 1,050,000 (approximately EUR   17,000)) and the amount established by the Supreme Court (MKD 350,000 (EUR 5,600)). After three remittals, on 7   July 2020 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant company’s claim. It found that, pursuant to section 205 of the Obligations Act, reimbursement of unjustly paid compensation based on death could not be requested when awarded to a person who had acted in good faith, as X had in this case. It held that X could not be reproached for using his right to enforce the judgment that had in the meantime become final and enforceable, regardless of the Supreme Court’s subsequent decision to amend the amount of compensation to be awarded. The applicant company complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the State failed to fulfil its positive obligations under this provision and that the Supreme Court’s decision of 7 July 2020 imposed an individual and   excessive burden on it. It submits that in 2008, in a similar case, the Supreme Court had found section 216 of the Obligations Act (identical to the current section 205) to be inapplicable. It further argues that on 13   September 2023 the Constitutional Court declared section 205 of the Obligations Act unconstitutional as being contrary to the principle of legal certainty. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Were the proceedings for unjust enrichment initiated by the applicant company in line with the procedural requirements under Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1   to the Convention (see Kotov v. Russia [GC], no. 54522/00, §§ 109-15, 3 April 2012, and Bilyavska v. Ukraine , no. 84568/17, § 39, 27   March 2025, with further references)? In particular, did the legal framework put in place by the State concerning unjust enrichment provide the applicant company with a mechanism enabling it to ensure respect for its rights guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?