003-7642121-10526419

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   consulted on Hudoc and do not appear in this press release.   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   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.   Just satisfaction:   non-pecuniary damage: EUR 900 to Ms Kitanovska   This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions,   judgments and further information about the Court can be found on www.echr.coe.int. To receive the   Court’s press releases, please subscribe here: www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on Twitter   @ECHR_CEDH.   Press contacts   [email protected] | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08   We would encourage journalists to send their enquiries via email.   Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel.: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)   Denis Lambert (tel.: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)   Inci Ertekin (tel.: + 33 3 90 21 55 30)   Neil Connolly (tel.: + 33 3 90 21 48 05)   Jane Swift (tel.: + 33 3 88 41 29 04)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe member   States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.   2