CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 octobre 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 25 October 2021   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 52572/18 Mitko ZHEZHOVSKI against North Macedonia lodged on 1 November 2018 communicated on 4 October 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns proceedings for counter-enforcement ( противизвршување ). The first-instance court decision of 7   November   2013 ordered the applicant to pay the costs of the proceedings to the respondent party. On 7   October 2017 this decision was quashed by the Court of Appeal. On 21 July 2017 the applicant lodged a claim for counter-enforcement against the respondent party, seeking reimbursement of the funds which he had paid for the legal costs following the decision of 7 November 2013. On 22 January 2018, after several remittals, the first-instance court partially granted the applicant’s claim. On 20 April 2018 the Court of Appeal overturned this decision finding that there had been no evidence that the decision of 7 November 2013 had been finally quashed. This decision was served on the applicant on 2 May 2018. The applicant lodged a request for reopening of the proceedings arguing that he had sent a copy of the Court of Appeal’s decision of 17   October   2017 to the first-instance court, which proved that the decision of 7   November 2013 had been finally quashed, but that the courts had disregarded this evidence. On 3 July 2018 the Court of Appeal rejected the applicant’s request for reopening. The applicant complains under Article 6 that the domestic courts dismissed his request for counter-enforcement and disregarded the Court of Appeal’s decision of 17 October 2017 which had quashed the first-instance decision which had served as the basis for his payment of the respondent party’s legal costs. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, were the domestic courts’ judgments adopted in the proceedings for counter-enforcement arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable (see Khamidov v. Russia , no. 72118/01, § 170, 15 November 2007; Anđelković v. Serbia , no. 1401/08, § 24, 9 April 2013; and Pavlović and Others v. Croatia , no. 13274/11, § 45, 2 April 2015)?