CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 décembre 2025

.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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s943D4F93 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:21.8pt; text-align:justify } Published on 12 January 2026   SECOND SECTION Application no. 34492/21 Verica VELKOVA against North Macedonia lodged on 24 June 2021 communicated on 19 December 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns civil proceedings against the applicant, a former bailiff, for unpaid membership fees (“the debt”), in the amount of 101,400 Macedonian denars (approximately 1,650 euros), to the Chamber of Bailiffs (“the Chamber”). On 22 March 2011, following disciplinary proceedings against the applicant, she permanently lost the right to practice as a bailiff. She received that decision on 5 April 2011. On 2 December 2011 she was relieved of her duties. On 3 September 2012 her office was removed from the trade registry. On 24 August 2012, at the request of the Chamber, an enforcement writ for the debt was issued against the applicant, in her capacity as bailiff. On 4 December 2012 the Chamber initiated civil proceedings against the applicant in her personal capacity, in which it asked the courts to find her personally liable for the debt. By a decision dated 22 November 2017, the second-instance court finally dismissed the Chamber’s request and found that the applicant had not performed her duties as a bailiff as of 5 April 2011 and that she could not be found liable for the debt in her personal capacity, as no such liability was provided under the Enforcement Act. On 20 January 2021 another enforcement writ was issued at the request of the Chamber against the applicant, this time in her personal capacity. The applicant lodged an objection, raising the issue of res iudicata and requesting that the enforcement writ be quashed, as she had already been found not to be personally liable for the debt in the decision of 22 November 2017 (see above). The first-instance court dismissed the objection. It found the applicant liable for the debt and held that, even though her office was no longer active, that did not mean that she was not liable for its debts in her personal capacity. As to the matter of res iudicata , the first-instance court considered that the decision of 22 November 2017 was irrelevant because the case at hand concerned the validity of the enforcement writ issued on the basis of the previous writ of 24 August 2012 (see above) that had not been quashed. In a final decision dated 15 March 2021, the second-instance court endorsed the findings of the lower court. The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention about the lack of legal certainty. She submits that the domestic courts did not respect the res iudicata principle and adopted two contradictory decisions.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Were the courts’ decisions to hold the applicant liable in her personal capacity for the debt which she had incurred as a bailiff compatible with the principle of legal certainty, as required under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Brumărescu v.   Romania [GC], no. 28342/95, § 61, ECHR   1999-VII, and Şamat v.   Turkey , no. 29115/07, §§ 53-55, 21   January   2020; see   also, mutatis mutandis , Esertas v. Lithuania , no.   50208/06, §§   20-32, 31 May 2012, and Vardanyan and Nanushyan v.   Armenia , no.   8001/07, §§   67-71, 27 October 2016)? In particular: (a)     Was the matter of the applicant’s personal liability for the debt incurred as a bailiff res iudicata following the domestic court’s decision of 22 November 2017? (b)     If so, did the courts’ decisions adopted in the second set of civil proceedings (the final decision of 15 March 2021) seek to correct a fundamental defect or rectify a miscarriage of justice?