CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 novembre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 8 December 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 822/22 MAKEDONSKA BANKA AD SKOPJE-IN BANKRUPTCY against North Macedonia lodged on 16 December 2021 communicated on 20 November 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns civil proceedings initiated by the applicant company against a third person for payment of debt. The opposing party submitted an objection against the applicant company’s claim in which it argued that the claim was time-barred. According to the applicant company, that objection was never communicated to it. Two court levels dismissed the applicant company’s claim for being time-barred. Under Article 6 of the Convention, the applicant company complains that the objection submitted by the opposing party was not communicated to it and that the Court of Appeal did not address its complaint in that respect. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Did the applicant company have a fair hearing in the determination of its civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6   §   1 of the Convention? In particular, was the principle of equality of arms and adversarial hearing respected in view of the applicant company’s allegations that the objection submitted by the opposing party had never been communicated to it (see Naumoski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no.   25248/05, § 25, 27   November 2012; Vorotņikova v. Latvia , no.   68188/13, §§ 21-22, 4 February 2021, with further references; and M.S. v. Finland , no. 46601/99, § 32, 22   March 2005)?