AD OSIGURITELNA POLISA SKOPJE A OSTATNÍ proti Severní Makedonii

SECOND SECTION

CASE OF AD OSIGURITELNA POLISA SKOPJE AND OTHERS v. NORTH MACEDONIA

(Applications nos. 62544/19 and 6430/20)

JUDGMENT

This version was rectified on 26 November 2025

under Rule 81 of the Rules of Court.

STRASBOURG

18 November 2025

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of AD Osiguritelna Polisa Skopje and Others v. North Macedonia,

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir, President,
Jovan Ilievski,
Stéphane Pisani, judges,
and Dorothee von Arnim, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to:

the applications against the Republic of North Macedonia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by the applicant companies listed in Annex 1, on the various dates indicated therein;

the decision to give notice of the applications to the Government of North Macedonia (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Ms D. Djonova;

the parties’ observations;

Having deliberated in private on 21 October 2025,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

1. The case concerns the non-enforcement of final and enforceable judgments and decisions ordering а State-owned company responsible for the maintenance and management of national roads and motorways (hereinafter “the debtor”), to pay the applicant companies various amounts of money. It raises issues notably under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

2. On 24 April 2012 the President of Skopje Court of First Instance no. 2 (subsequently renamed Skopje Civil Court of First Instance, hereinafter “the first-instance civil court”), acting at the request of the debtor, held that a final decision against it could be enforced only in respect of surplus of its assets exceeding the minimum indispensable assets necessary for the performance of the debtor’s duties, as established by an expert report (“the surplus decision”). In addition, on 4 September 2012, 13 December 2012 and 14 June 2021 the threshold of indispensable assets necessary for the performance of the debtor’s duties was gradually increased.

3. Ruling in favour of the applicant companies, in the period from 2013 to 2017 the first-instance civil court adopted a series of judgments pertaining to monetary claims against the debtor.

4. Those judgments included:

(i) in favour of the first applicant company, the judgments in: file no. TS.br.350/13 of 23 July 2013, which became enforceable on 10 October 2014; file no. MALV.TS.br.4288/11 of 30 May 2014, enforceable since 30 July 2014; file no. TS.br.1419/09 of 29 October 2014, enforceable since 2 January 2015; file no. TS.br. 384/09 of 18 December 2014, enforceable since 3 October 2016; and file no. MALV.TS.br.307/15 of 18 October 2016, enforceable since 12 July 2017.

(ii) in favour of the eighth applicant company, the judgments in: file no. MALV.TS.br.112/15 of 8 February 2016, enforceable since 15 March 2017, and file no. MALV.TS.br. 118/16 of 16 May 2017, enforceable since 21 June 2017.

It appears that those judgments have not yet been enforced.

5. On 15 May 2023 the Court received from the Government friendly settlement declarations signed by the parties under which the first (concerning nineteen final judgments other than those mentioned in paragraph 4 above), second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth applicant companies which had lodged application no. 62544/19, and the seventh, eighth (concerning seventeen final judgments other than those mentioned in paragraph 4 above), and tenth applicant companies which had lodged application no. 6430/20, had agreed to waive any further claims against the respondent State in respect of the facts giving rise to the corresponding parts of the applications (see for the details of the final judgments covered Annex 2 below). Furthermore, they had agreed to the following:

“...

2. The applicant company undertakes to submit to the Government within one month following the notification of the Court’s decision striking the respective part of the case out of its list of cases, a fresh notification issued by the competent bailiff with respect to each and every payments made by the debtor upon the enforcement order, issued upon the final decision delivered in the case mentioned in paragraph 1 above, in particular with respect to any such payments by the debtor after the notification issued by the competent bailiffs and submitted by the applicant company in the process of friendly settlement negotiations.

3. The applicant company undertakes to submit to the Government within one month following the notification of the Court’s decision striking the respective part of the case out of its list of the cases, notification that the enforcement request submitted with respect to the final decision[s] that are subject matter of the respective part of the application, delivered in the case[s] mentioned in paragraph 1, [have/has] been withdrawn and that therefore the appropriate enforcement proceedings have been terminated.

...”

On their part, the Government undertook to pay the applicant companies the amounts detailed in Annex 2 below, covering any pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage, as well as legal costs and expenses, less the sums already paid by the debtor at national level after the notification issued by the competent bailiffs and submitted by the applicant companies in the process of the friendly settlement negotiations. As specified in the declarations, these amounts are set out in the national currency of the respondent State, and will be payable within four months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the cases.

6. On 15 May 2023 the Court further received a declaration, signed by the Government and the ninth applicant company’s representative, the relevant part of which reads as follows:

“...

The applicant company with a view to secure a friendly settlement of the above‑mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights in the part lodged by the applicant company, herewith withdraws the respective part of the application no. 6430/20.

The applicant company agrees to waive any further claims against North Macedonia in respect of the facts giving rise to the respective part of this application.”

THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT

1. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

7. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.

2. MERGER OF THE FOURTH and TENTH applicant COMPANIEs

8. On 16 January 2025 and 21 March 2025 the applicant companies’ representative informed the Court that on 27 June 2024 the tenth applicant company, originally a party to the proceedings, had merged with the fourth applicant company. The tenth applicant company therefore had ceased to exist as a separate legal entity. As a result of the merger, the fourth applicant company assumed all the rights and obligations of the tenth applicant company and it was willing to proceed with the application further. On 3 April 2025 the Government informed the Court that, in light of the merger between the fourth and tenth applicant companies, its nature and its legal consequences, the Government were prepared to pay the amount agreed upon in the friendly settlement declaration signed with the tenth applicant company, to the fourth applicant company.

9. In view of the parties’ submissions, and given that the case at hand primarily involves pecuniary claims, which can be transferred to applicants’ legal successors (see Uniya OOO and Belcourt Trading Company v. Russia, nos. 4437/03 and 13290/03, § 260, 19 June 2014), the Court considers that the fourth applicant company has standing to pursue the application in the tenth applicant company’s stead (compare Schweizerische Radio-und Fernsehgesellschaft and publisuisse SA v. Switzerland, no. 41723/14, § 43, 22 December 2020, and, mutatis mutandis, Euromak Metal Doo v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 68039/14, §§ 32-33, 14 June 2018).

3. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 39 OF THE CONVENTION

10. The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties in respect of the applicant companies and the judgments referred to in paragraph 5 above. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no reasons to justify a continued examination of the applications.

11. Accordingly, that part of the applications should be struck out of the Court’s list of cases in accordance with Article 39 of the Convention.

4. Application of article 37 § 1 of the Convention

12. In light of the content of the declaration referred to in paragraph 6 above, the Court concludes that the ninth applicant company does not wish to pursue the corresponding part of application no. 6430/20, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. It further does not discern any special circumstances regarding respect for the rights guaranteed by the Convention or its Protocols which would require it to continue the examination of the part of application no. 6430/20 lodged by the ninth applicant company (Article 37 § 1 in fine).

13. Accordingly, the part of application no. 6430/20 lodged by the ninth applicant company should be struck out of the Court’s list of cases pursuant to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention.

5. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION

14. The first and eighth applicant companies, relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, complained of the non-enforcement of certain final domestic judgments in their favour, listed in paragraph 4 above.

1. Admissibility

15. The Government argued that the eighth applicant company had not exhausted domestic remedies in so far as it had failed to seek enforcement of the final domestic judgments through a bailiff, and that the first applicant company had initiated enforcement proceedings only after lodging the application with the Court. Moreover, they had not initiated insolvency proceedings against the debtor, nor had they challenged by way of a length remedy before the Supreme Court the length of the enforcement proceedings. They further argued that the first and eighth applicants’ complaints were incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention. They argued that the State was not liable for the debts in question, since the debtor was a separate legal entity enjoying autonomy in respect of its operation. Lastly, the Government submitted that the first and eighth applicant companies had not complied with the six-month time-limit, which had in their view started to run at the moment when the final judgments in their favour had become enforceable. This was because the first and eighth applicant companies had become aware that judgments against the debtor had been practically unenforceable already in 2012 when the first decision setting the minimum indispensable assets necessary for the performance of the debtor’s duties had been adopted (see paragraph 2 above). In any event, even if the non-enforcement constituted a continuing situation, the first and eighth applicant company should have lodged their applications much earlier.

16. The first and eighth applicant companies contested these arguments.

17. Turning to the Government’s non-exhaustion objections, the Court refers to the general principles as regards the issue of the exhaustion of domestic remedies, as summarised in Vučković and Others v. Serbia (preliminary objection) ([GC], nos. 17153/11 and 29 others, §§ 69‑77, 25 March 2014). The Court further reiterates that a person who has obtained a judgment against the State may not be expected to bring separate enforcement proceedings. In such cases, the defendant State authority must be duly notified of the judgment and is thus well placed to take all necessary initiatives to comply with it or to transmit it to another competent State authority responsible for execution (see Burdov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 33509/04, § 68, ECHR 2009).

18. The Court observes that the final judgments in question concerned pecuniary claims against the debtor – a public enterprise which is a separate legal entity. The debtor was not founded under private law rules, but operates pursuant to the Act on Public Enterprises, and was established by the respondent State in order to carry out activities in the public interest. The Government of the respondent State appoints the executive board of the debtor. 80% of any surplus generated from its operations is paid into the State budget. It is immaterial that the debtor performs public interest activities on the basis of civil-law contracts concluded with another public enterprise, or that it may, in certain matters, act as a private entity, make profit, and be held liable before the civil courts. The Court concludes that the respondent Government should be considered responsible under the Convention for its acts. In such circumstances, the first and the eighth applicant companies were not required to initiate separate enforcement proceedings before lodging their applications with the Court, but it was the duty of the respondent State authorities to take all necessary measures to enforce the final judgments in question. The failure of the first and eighth applicant companies to initiate (in a timely manner or at all) enforcement proceedings in respect of the final judgments identified in paragraph 4 above does not therefore amount to non‑exhaustion of domestic remedies. Lastly, in view of the “surplus decision” which allowed for enforcement against the debtor only from the surplus exceeding the minimum assets necessary for its operation, the Court is not convinced that either the length remedy or any insolvency proceedings against the debtor could have enabled the first and eighth applicant companies to obtain the sums owed to them. The Court therefore dismisses the Government’s corresponding objections.

19. The first and eighth applicants complained about the impossibility to have the final judgments in their favour enforced. The Court reiterates that, irrespective of whether enforcement is to be carried out against a private or State actor, under Article 6 of the Convention it is up to the State to take all necessary steps, within its competence, to execute a final court judgment (see, among many other authorities, Vrtar v. Croatia, no. 39380/13, § 96, 7 January 2016). The Court, having also regard to its previous findings (see paragraphs 17-18 above), therefore dismisses the Government’s objection that the first and eighth applicants’ complaints are incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention.

20. In respect of the objection concerning the six-month time-limit, the Court observes that the present case concerns the non-enforcement, to the present day, of final domestic judgments in the first and eighth applicant companies’ favour. Therefore, the Court accepts that the alleged violation constitutes a continuous situation (compare Lolić v. Serbia, no. 44095/06, § 23, 22 October 2013). The “surplus decision” of 2012 was adopted before the judgments in question became final, in proceedings to which the first and eighth applicant companies were not parties. The subsequent decisions merely increased the surplus. As argued by the Government (see paragraph 22 below), those decisions did not legally preclude the enforcement. The applicant companies could still have had a reasonable expectation that the judgments could be enforced. Moreover, they could not anticipate whether and when the debtor’s assets would exceed the threshold established with the surplus decisions, as this depended exclusively on the debtor’s operation. The Court therefore dismisses the Government’s objection concerning the compliance with the six-month time-limit.

21. The Court further considers that these complaints are not manifestly ill‑founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further finds that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.

2. Merits

22. The Government submitted that no violation of the applicant companies’ rights had occurred. They argued that the decision of the President of the first-instance civil court (see paragraph 2 above) had been legitimate and had pursued the aim of protecting the public interest and ensuring the functionality of the public company – the debtor. They further contended that the decision had only potentially delayed enforcement but had not rendered it impossible.

23. The Court reiterates that the execution of a judgment given by any court must be regarded as an integral part of the “trial” for the purposes of Article 6 (see Hornsby v. Greece, 19 March 1997, § 40, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997‑II).

24. The complexity of the State budgetary system cannot relieve the State of its obligation under the Convention to guarantee to everyone the right to have a binding and enforceable judicial decision enforced within a reasonable time. Nor is it open to a State authority to cite the lack of funds or other resources as an excuse for not honouring a judgment debt (see Burdov, cited above, § 70).

25. The Court observes that the debtor, a State-owned company and a party to the domestic proceedings, was aware of its obligation to pay the sums awarded to the applicant companies under the final and enforceable judgments. From the date those judgments became final and enforceable, between 30 July 2014 and 12 July 2017 (see in detail paragraph 4 above) the debtor was required to take all necessary measures to ensure the availability of funds to settle the State’s debt. Instead, the debtor sought and obtained a decision from the domestic court to increase the threshold of indispensable assets required for the performance of its duties (see paragraph 2 above), which was at odds with the State’s obligation to guarantee to the first and eighth applicant companies the right to have a binding and enforceable judicial decision enforced within a reasonable time. While it is true, as the Government argued, that the decisions to increase that threshold did not legally preclude the enforcement of the judgments, it certainly caused a delay, and arguably rendered the enforcement of the final judgments in the applicants’ favour even less probable. In result, the enforcement of the various judgments referred to in paragraph 4 above has been pending for at least eight years.

26. The Court further finds that the enforcement actions in question were not complex, in so far as the judgments required only the payment of a sum of money. It has not been argued that the applicant companies impeded the enforcement process.

27. The Court concludes that the judgments in the applicant companies’ favour were not enforced in a timely manner, for which the State authorities were responsible. In view of the above, the Court finds that the State authorities have failed to take necessary measures to enforce the judgments in question. There has, accordingly, been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

6. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 TO THE CONVENTION

28. The first and eighth applicant companies further complained that the non-enforcement of the final domestic judgments in their favour, referred to in paragraph 4 above, amounted to a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

29. The Court notes that the complaints are linked to those examined above and must, therefore, also be declared admissible.

30. The Court finds that the State’s failure to enforce the final judgments at issue rendered in favour of the first and eighth applicant companies constitutes an interference with their right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions, as set out in the first sentence of the first paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (compare Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, § 40, ECHR 2002-III).

31. For the reasons set out above in respect of Article 6 of the Convention, the Court considers that that interference was not justified in the circumstances of the present case. There has, accordingly, been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

7. OTHER COMPLAINTS

32. The first and the eighth applicant companies also complained under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of an effective remedy to challenge the decisions of the President of the first-instance civil court concerning the enforcement of the final judgments only in respect of surplus assets exceeding the amount of assets necessary for the performance of the debtor’s duties.

33. Having regard to the facts of the case, the parties’ submissions and its findings above, the Court considers that it has dealt with the main legal questions raised by the case and that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the remaining complaints (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014).

APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

34. The first and eighth applicant companies claimed 147,079 and 17,592 euros (EUR) respectively in respect of pecuniary damage, which were the amounts of the outstanding debts, with interest, as calculated by the relevant bailiffs. Each of them further claimed EUR 6,000 in respect of non‑pecuniary damage and EUR 1,250 in respect of costs and expenses incurred before the Court.

35. As regards the pecuniary damage claimed, the Court reiterates that the most appropriate form of redress in non‑enforcement cases is to ensure full enforcement of the domestic judgments in question (see, for example, Maria Mihalache v. Romania, no. 68851/16, § 80, 30 June 2020). It further recalls that it is primarily for the respondent State to choose the means to be used in its domestic legal order to discharge its legal obligation under Article 46 of the Convention (see Shofman v. Russia, no. 74826/01, § 53, 24 November 2005, with further references). In the present case, the respondent State has an outstanding obligation to enforce the final judgments in respect of which the Court found violations of Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. The Court therefore considers that the Government must secure, by appropriate means, the enforcement of the outstanding judgments (compare, for example, Kunić and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, nos. 68955/12 and 15 others, § 37, 14 November 2017).

36. As regards non-pecuniary damage, making its assessment on an equitable basis, the Court awards the first and eighth applicant companies EUR 4,700 each, plus any tax that may be chargeable. Lastly, having regard to the documents in its possession, the Court awards the first and eighth applicant companies EUR 1,250 each for the costs incurred in the proceedings before it, plus any tax that may be chargeable on the applicant companies.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1. Decides to join the applications;
2. Holds that the fourth applicant company has standing to pursue the application in the tenth applicant company’s stead;
3. Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 39 of the Convention in respect of the first and eighth applicant companies’ complaints covered by the friendly settlement declarations reached between the parties, and in respect of all the complaints of the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh applicant companies, as well as of all the complaints brought initially by the tenth applicant company and in respect of which the proceedings were pursued by the fourth applicant company;
4. Decides to strike the part of application no. 6430/20 lodged by the ninth applicant company out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention;
5. Declares the applications in respect of the first applicant company’s complaints regarding the non-enforcement of the final domestic judgments in file nos. TS.br.350/13, MALV.TS.br.4288/11, TS.br.1419/09, TS.br.384/09 and MALV.TS.br.307/15, and in respect of the eighth applicant company complaints regarding the non-enforcement of the final domestic judgments in file nos. MALV.TS.br.112/15 and MALV.TS.br.118/16 admissible;
6. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention owing to the non‑enforcement of the final domestic judgments in file nos. TS.br.350/13, MALV.TS.br.4288/11, TS.br.1419/09, TS.br.384/09 and MALV.TS.br.307/15 in respect of the first applicant company;
7. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention owing to the non‑enforcement of the final domestic judgments in file nos. MALV.TS.br.112/15 and MALV.TS.br.118/16 in respect of the eighth applicant company;
8. Holds that there is no need to examine the complaints under Article 13 of the Convention;
9. Holds

(a) that the respondent State shall ensure, by appropriate means, within three months, the enforcement of the final domestic judgments referred to in points 6 and 7 of the operative provisions and, in addition, is to pay, within the same period, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:[1]

(i) EUR 4,700 (four thousand and seven hundred euros) each to the first and eighth applicant companies respectively, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;

(ii) EUR 1,250 (one thousand two hundred and fifty euros) each to the first and eighth applicant companies respectively, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant companies, in respect of costs and expenses; and

(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;

10. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant companies’ claim for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 18 November 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Dorothee von Arnim Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir
Deputy Registrar President

ANNEX 1

List of cases, applicant companies and details of the non-enforced domestic decisions:

ANNEX 2

List of cases, applicant companies and details on the concluded friendly settlement declarations and the judgments covered by them:

[1] Rectified on 26 November 2025: the text was “9.Holds

(a) that the respondent State shall ensure, by appropriate means, within three months, the enforcement of the final domestic judgments referred to in points 5 and 6 of the operative provisions …”