CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 juin 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 3 June 2019   FIRST SECTION Application no. 33879/16 Natalija GADANEC-KETIKIDIS against North Macedonia lodged on 9 June 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns civil proceedings for debt (in relation to overdraft on the applicant’s bank account) initiated against the applicant on 5 October 2010 by a bank. The Skopje Court of First Instance issued a payment order ( платен налог ) on 25 June 2012, ordering the applicant to pay the debt with interest calculated as of 22 October 2007 (maturity date of the debt), which was served on the applicant on 31 March 2015. The applicant challenged it before the domestic courts, arguing that due to the belated service she had been unable to secure evidence to challenge the debt given that the document retention obligation for financial institutions had been five years. By a final judgment of 9 December 2015, the Skopje Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the first-instance judgment. The applicant’s length remedy was also dismissed by two levels of the Supreme Court. The court held the relevant period had begun to run when the applicant had been served with the payment order and therefore lasted for nine months at two judicial instances, which was not to be considered excessive. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of her civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, taking into account the delay of service of the payment order to the applicant by the Skopje Court of First Instance, was the applicant’s right to participate effectively in those proceedings respected?   2.     Was the length of the civil proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, taking into account the domestic courts’ decision to award interest on the debt which included the period before the applicant became aware of the proceedings, when did the “reasonable time” referred to in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention begin to run?