CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 29 janvier 2025

.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 } .s5961B929 { margin-top:3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sE57B1C27 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sEAB1756B { height:50.15pt } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s76AD0776 { height:52.3pt } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 17 February 2025   SECOND SECTION   Application no. 26795/21 Dimitar BARBULOVSKI against North Macedonia and 2 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 29 January 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the rejection of their objections to payment orders issued by notaries public for not having been submitted by a lawyer, as required by section 68 of the Notary Act, but by the applicants themselves. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES   1. Has the applicant in application no. 34199/23 abused his right to individual application within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, in view of the language used in respect of the respondent State in his application to the Court (see, mutatis mutandis , Ŕehák v. Czech Republic (dec.), no. 67208/01, 18 May 2004; Di Salvo v. Italy (dec.), no.   16098/05, 11 January 2007; and Apinis v. Latvia (dec.), no. 46549/06, §§   15-16, 20 September 2011)?   2. Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right of access to court within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, can the statutory requirement compelling litigants to engage a lawyer in the proceedings pertaining to their objections against the payment orders in question be regarded as a proportionate limitation on the applicants’ right of access to a court (see Kitanovska and Barbulovski v. North Macedonia , no.   53030/19, §§ 46-61, 9 May 2023)?   APPENDIX   No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of birth/establishment Place of residence Nationality (for the individual applicant) 1. 26795/21 Barbulovski v. North Macedonia 14/05/2021     Dimitar BARBULOVSKI 1945 Skopje Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia   2. 54230/21 Barbulovski v. North Macedonia 29/10/2021 3. 34199/23 Aries Goran Dooel import-export Skopje v. North Macedonia 04/09/2023 ARIES GORAN DOOEL IMPORT-EXPORT SKOPJE 2000 Skopje