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.”

Outcome for Article 6: violation