SECOND SECTION
CASE OF PUCKO PETROL IMPORT-EXPORT DOOEL v. NORTH MACEDONIA
(Application no. 6381/20)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
10 February 2026
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Pucko Petrol import-export Dooel v. North Macedonia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Péter Paczolay, President,
 Jovan Ilievski,
 Juha Lavapuro, judges,
and Dorothee von Arnim, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 6381/20) 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”) on 22 January 2020 by the applicant company, Pucko Petrol import‑export Dooel (“the applicant company”), established in 1999 with its registered office in Plasnica, and represented by Mr N. Dodevski, a lawyer practising in Skopje;
the decision to give notice of the application to the Government of North Macedonia (“the Government”) represented by their Agent, Ms D. Djonova;
the parties’ observations;
 Having deliberated in private on 20 January 2026,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The case concerns the non‑enforcement of a final and enforceable judgment in favour of the applicant company against a State‑run student residence (“the debtor”). 2. On 11 May 2016 the President of Skopje Court of First Instance no. 2, acting at the request of the debtor, held that a final decision against the debtor could be enforced only in respect of surplus assets exceeding the minimum indispensable assets necessary for the performance of the debtor’s duties, as established by an expert report (hereinafter “the surplus decision”). The applicant company was not a party to those proceedings. Subsequently, three surplus decisions with the same minimum of indispensable assets but in respect of other creditors concerning different sets of enforcement proceedings were adopted in 2018 and 2019. 3. On 6 December 2018 Skopje Court of First Instance no. 2 allowed the applicant company’s claim against the debtor in respect of unpaid invoices in the amount of 2,957,988 Macedonian denars ((MKD) – approximately 48,000 euros (EUR)) (“the debt in issue”). The judgment became final on 21 December 2018 and enforceable on 31 December 2018. As the debt remained unpaid, an enforcement order was issued on 26 February 2019 in accordance with that judgment. 4. On the date on which the enforcement order was issued (26 February 2019), a payment in the amount of MKD 121,120 (approximately EUR 2,000) was made to the applicant company in respect of the costs incurred in the above‑mentioned proceedings (see paragraph 3 above). On 8 July 2019 a second payment of MKD 11,946 (approximately EUR 200) was made to the applicant company in respect of an invoice mentioned in the judgment given in those proceedings (see paragraph 3 above). 5. On 22 July 2019 the applicant company was informed by a bailiff that the judgment of 6 December 2018 had not yet been executed owing to the surplus decision (see paragraph 2 above). 6. On 31 December 2019 the sum of MKD 166,074 (approximately EUR 2,700) was paid to the applicant company in respect of the costs incurred in a different set of enforcement proceedings. 7. On 27 April 2021 the applicant company and the debtor entered into a debt repayment agreement regulating the payment of the debt in issue and another debt arising from a different set of enforcement proceedings, together with related interest (“the first agreement”). On the basis of a financial report, the debtor’s total debt in respect of the applicant company was determined at MKD 7,830,205 (approximately EUR 127,000). On 3 June 2021 a payment in the amount of MKD 1,000,000 (approximately EUR 16,200) was made to the applicant company in accordance with the first agreement. 8. On 25 February 2022 the parties entered into a second agreement regulating the payment of the debts covered by the first agreement and two other debts arising from purchase agreements entered into by the parties, together with related interest (“the second agreement”). On the basis of a financial report, the debtor’s total debt in respect of the applicant company was now determined at MKD 9,399,333 (approximately EUR 152,000). On 1 March 2022 that agreement was approved by a notary public. The next day the applicant company withdrew its application for enforcement of 26 February 2019 (see paragraph 3 above). 9. The debtor subsequently made eight payments to the applicant company. One of those payments was made on the basis of the second agreement only and the remaining seven payments were all made on the basis of different invoices (not mentioned in the judgment of 6 December 2018) and an unspecified debt repayment agreement. 10. It appears that the applicant company was paid a total amount of MKD 5,732,250 (approximately EUR 93,000) by the debtor on the various grounds mentioned in paragraphs 4, 6-9. above. 11. The applicant company initiated a second set of enforcement proceedings on the basis of the second agreement. On 20 September 2022 a new enforcement order was issued. It appears that part of the debt concerned by the second agreement, including part of the debt in issue, remained unpaid on the date on which the parties’ latest observations were submitted to the Court (28 February 2024). On 28 September 2022 another surplus decision was adopted in respect of the applicant company concerning the second set of enforcement proceedings with the same minimum of indispensable assets as the decisions mentioned in paragraph 2 above. The applicant company did not appeal against that decision. 12. The applicant company complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the non‑enforcement of the judgment of 6 December 2018 concerning the debt in issue. It also complained under Article 13 of the Convention of the lack of an effective remedy to challenge the surplus decision and the lack of an effective remedy to ensure the enforcement of the judgment in its favour. Lastly, it complained that the non-enforcement had infringed its right to the peaceful enjoyment of its possessions, as guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

Outcome for Article P1-1: violation