CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 21 juin 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s4AEF4500 { height:30.5pt } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s4F306575 { height:38.45pt } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4EAC6575 { height:38.05pt }   Published on 12 July 2021   FIFTH SECTION Applications nos. 53030/19 and 31378/20 Nadezhda KITANOVSKA against North Macedonia and Dimitar BARBULOVSKI against North Macedonia lodged on 3 October 2019 and 10 July 2020 respectively communicated on 21 June 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern proceedings in which the applicants’ objections to payment orders issued by a notary public were rejected by two court levels for not being submitted by a lawyer, as required by the relevant domestic law, but by the applicants themselves. Section 68 of the Notary Act, as applied by the domestic courts, requires mandatory legal representation in such proceedings, except when the State is the creditor, regardless of the amount at stake. The payment order for the first applicant was in the amount of 6,329 denars (approximately 103 euros) plus procedural costs and a statutory interest, and for the second applicant 1,054   denars (approximately 17 euros) plus procedural costs and a statutory interest. These sums slightly increased in the enforcement proceedings as costs were added.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right of access to court within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention? In particular, can the statutory requirement, set forth in section 68 of the Notary Act and applied by the domestic courts in the present cases, compelling litigants to engage a lawyer in the proceedings pertaining to their objections against the payment orders in question, be regarded as proportionate within the meaning of this Article?   APPENDIX   No. Application no. Case name Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality 1. 53030/19 Kitanovska v. North Macedonia Nadezhda KITANOVSKA 1944 Skopje Macedonian/ citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia 2. 31378/20 Barbulovski v. North Macedonia Dimitar BARBULOVSKI 1945 Skopje Macedonian/ citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia