issued by the Registrar of the Court
ECHR 134 (2023)
09.05.2023
Judgments of 9 May 2023
The European Court of Human Rights has today given notification in writing of 16 Chamber
judgments1:
two judgments are summarised below;
separate press releases have been issued for four other judgments in the cases of Horion v. Belgium
(application no. 37928/20), Jehovah’s Witnesses v. Finland (no. 31172/19), Ghadamian v. Switzerland
(no. 21768/19), and Korkut and Amnesty International Türkiye v. Türkiye (no. 61177/09);
ten Committee judgments, concerning issues which have already been examined by the Court, can be
The judgments summarised below are available only in English.
Supergrav Albania Shpk v. Albania (application no. 20702/18)
The applicant, Supergrav Albania Shpk, is a company based in Burrel (Albania).
The case concerns the rejection of the applicant company’s complaint to the Constitutional Court due
to its having fallen outside the four-month time-limit. The case had concerned a civil suit against the
police in Mat for alleged dismantling of the applicant company’s machinery.
Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant
company complains of the time-limit set by that court.
Violation of Article 6 § 1
Just satisfaction:
non-pecuniary damage: 3,600 euros (EUR)
costs and expenses: EUR 2,000
Kitanovska and Barbulovski v. North Macedonia (nos. 53030/19 and 31378/20)
The applicants, Nadezhda Kitanovska and Dimitar Barbulovski, are Macedonians/citizens of North
Macedonia, who were born in 1944 and 1945, respectively, and live in Skopje.
The case concerns proceedings brought by the applicants objecting against payment orders issued by
public notaries. The applicants’ objections were rejected because they were not submitted via a
lawyer.
Relying principally on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention, the applicants
complain that their objections were rejected without being examined on the merits.
Violation of Article 6 in respect of Ms Kitanovska’s right of access to a court
1
Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, Chamber judgments are not final. During the three-month period following a judgment’s
delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges
considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final judgment.
If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day. Under Article 28 of the Convention, judgments
delivered by a Committee are final.
Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution.
Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution.
