DIME DOO IMPORT-EXPORT SKOPJE v. NORTH MACEDONIA and 3 other applications

Published on 24 March 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 49524/22 DIME DOO IMPORT-EXPORT SKOPJE against North Macedonia and 3 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 6 March 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern non-enforcement of final judgments ordering a State-owned enterprise for national roads and motorways to pay the applicants various sums of money. The judgments in the applicants’ favour were taken on various dates between October 2011 and January 2024. Between April 2012 and June 2021, in proceedings which the above debtor had instituted against some other creditors, the President of the Skopje Court of First Instance adopted several decisions with an erga omnes effect towards all its creditors, finding that a final decision against the debtor could only be enforced 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. None of the present applicants were parties to those proceedings. The debtor never reported sufficient assets and, consequently, the judgments in the applicants’ favour remain unenforced. The applicants complain, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 thereto, about the non-enforcement of the final judgments in their favour. In addition, under those same provisions, the applicants in applications nos. 1382/24, 18565/24 and 18870/24 submit that their claims risk becoming time-barred due to legislative changes introduced to the Obligations Act which entered into force on 20 July 2023. Lastly, under Article 13 of the Convention, the applicants complain about the lack of an effective remedy to have those judgments and decisions enforced. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.  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 applicants’ inability to enforce the final judgments and decisions in their 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)?   2.  Did the applicants have at their disposal effective domestic remedies for their complaints under Article 6 of the Convention and/or Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention (see Burdov (no. 2), cited above, §§ 96-100)?     APPENDIX No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Represented by 1. 49524/22 Dime Doo import-export Skopje v. North Macedonia 07/10/2022 DIME DOO IMPORT-EXPORT SKOPJE 1992 Skopje North Macedonia Dejan BOGDANOV 2. 1382/24 Makpetrol AD Skopje v. North Macedonia 26/12/2023 MAKPETROL AD SKOPJE 1947 Skopje North Macedonia Kostadin BOGDANOV 3. 18565/24 Rasco Makedonija Dooel Skopje v. North Macedonia 18/06/2024 RASCO MAKEDONIJA DOOEL SKOPJE 2010 Skopje North Macedonia Kostadin BOGDANOV 4. 18870/24 Triglav Osiguruvanje AD Skopje and Others v. North Macedonia 04/07/2024 TRIGLAV OSIGURUVANJE AD SKOPJE 1993 Skopje North Macedonia AD OSIGURITELNA POLISA SKOPJE 2005 Skopje North Macedonia CROATIA OSIGURUVANJE AD 2009 Skopje North Macedonia EVROINS OSIGURUVANJE AD SKOPJE 1995 Skopje North Macedonia Zhivko GRUEVSKI 1955 Veles North Macedonia Tatjana IVANOVSKA 1971 Skopje North Macedonia Kostadin BOGDANOV