1. CEARM CHAMBER OF ENFORCEMENT AGENTS OF THE REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA The Macedonian System of Transfer of Old Unfinished Enforcement Cases, Applied in the Courts Before 26 May 2006 to the Enforcement Agents and Notaries

2. The Law on enforcement of the Republic of Macedonia was adopted in 2005 and it started to apply on 26 th of May in 2006. The Law on enforcement of the Republic of Macedonia was adopted in 2005 and it started to apply on 26 th of May in 2006. First enforcement agents started to work on 26 th of May 2006 year, whereas the courts ceased to be competent and consequently ceased to accept requests for forcible enforcement of final enforcement titles. First enforcement agents started to work on 26 th of May 2006 year, whereas the courts ceased to be competent and consequently ceased to accept requests for forcible enforcement of final enforcement titles.

3. At that time in all 30 (thirty) courts in the Republic of Macedonia there was more than one million unresolved enforcement cases, which amounted to approximately 70% of the total number of court cases, which although were undisputed in the statistics of the judiciary, overburdened it with large number of unresolved cases. At that time in all 30 (thirty) courts in the Republic of Macedonia there was more than one million unresolved enforcement cases, which amounted to approximately 70% of the total number of court cases, which although were undisputed in the statistics of the judiciary, overburdened it with large number of unresolved cases.

4. With the amendments to the Law on enforcement of 3 rd of July 2009 year, transfer of unresolved cases should have started on 1 st of July 2010, but with the amendments of 2 nd of July 2010, this time limit was extended to one year more. With the amendments to the Law on enforcement of 3 rd of July 2009 year, transfer of unresolved cases should have started on 1 st of July 2010, but with the amendments of 2 nd of July 2010, this time limit was extended to one year more. (Although the Law on enforcement already came into force on 1 st of July, it was postponed the very next day – on 2 nd of July) (Although the Law on enforcement already came into force on 1 st of July, it was postponed the very next day – on 2 nd of July)

5. During this period of time (from 26 th of May 2006 until 1 st of July 2011) the number of unresolved cases in courts was technically reduced to approximately 600.000 cases, by consolidation of several cases with a same debtor in one court case. During this period of time (from 26 th of May 2006 until 1 st of July 2011) the number of unresolved cases in courts was technically reduced to approximately 600.000 cases, by consolidation of several cases with a same debtor in one court case. Due to an error in the past (during the socialist period), when the courts established so called “spilled departments” and “authorized” social enterprises for utility services (at that time) to run case registers by themselves, so that they could (although being creditors in that cases), accept their own requests for enforcement, make record of it, write decisions on enforcement, sign it with a given facsimile by the judge and deliver it to the debtors, today, it is almost impossible to determine the exact number of cases which are supposed to be transferred to the enforcement agents. Due to an error in the past (during the socialist period), when the courts established so called “spilled departments” and “authorized” social enterprises for utility services (at that time) to run case registers by themselves, so that they could (although being creditors in that cases), accept their own requests for enforcement, make record of it, write decisions on enforcement, sign it with a given facsimile by the judge and deliver it to the debtors, today, it is almost impossible to determine the exact number of cases which are supposed to be transferred to the enforcement agents.

6. With an assistance of USAID, the Ministry of justice of the RM carried out an inventory of the court cases and the cases in the utility companies, following which it was determined a number of approximately 600.000 cases which were supposed to be transferred to enforcement agents. With an assistance of USAID, the Ministry of justice of the RM carried out an inventory of the court cases and the cases in the utility companies, following which it was determined a number of approximately 600.000 cases which were supposed to be transferred to enforcement agents.

7. The transfer procedure is as follows: The creditors who initiated enforcement procedure in front of the courts until 26 th of May 2006, in respect of which a final decision on enforcement is delivered in the court, are bound, within a time limit of six months since the day of the application of this law,(1 st of July to 31 st of December 2011) to submit a statement in the court in front of which the enforcement procedure is being conducted, pointing out to which enforcement agent the case should be given and to what extent the claim was settled, so that the enforcement agent could continue with the enforcement. The creditors who initiated enforcement procedure in front of the courts until 26 th of May 2006, in respect of which a final decision on enforcement is delivered in the court, are bound, within a time limit of six months since the day of the application of this law,(1 st of July to 31 st of December 2011) to submit a statement in the court in front of which the enforcement procedure is being conducted, pointing out to which enforcement agent the case should be given and to what extent the claim was settled, so that the enforcement agent could continue with the enforcement.

8. In respect of the cases for which a legal remedy was filed, the time limit of six months starts to run from the day of receipt by the creditor, of the decision delivered, with which that legal remedy was dismissed as unfounded. In respect of the cases for which a legal remedy was filed, the time limit of six months starts to run from the day of receipt by the creditor, of the decision delivered, with which that legal remedy was dismissed as unfounded. If the legal remedy is accepted, the time limit of six months starts to run from the day of receipt by the creditor of the decision delivered on the legal remedy and the procedure continues in front of an enforcement agent, who is obliged to abide by the instructions given by the higher court, in accordance with the powers of the enforcement agent. If the legal remedy is accepted, the time limit of six months starts to run from the day of receipt by the creditor of the decision delivered on the legal remedy and the procedure continues in front of an enforcement agent, who is obliged to abide by the instructions given by the higher court, in accordance with the powers of the enforcement agent. The creditor who will not act in this manner, will be considered to have withdrawn the request for enforcement, in respect of which the court will deliver decision against which an appeal could be lodged in a period of eight days. The creditor who will not act in this manner, will be considered to have withdrawn the request for enforcement, in respect of which the court will deliver decision against which an appeal could be lodged in a period of eight days.

9. The court in front of which the appeal is lodged is obliged within a period of three days since the day of payment of the court tax, to deliver the case to the appellate court, which is required to adjudicate upon the appeal in a period of 15 days. The court in front of which the appeal is lodged is obliged within a period of three days since the day of payment of the court tax, to deliver the case to the appellate court, which is required to adjudicate upon the appeal in a period of 15 days. With the transfer of the enforcement cases from the courts to the enforcement agents, the limitation period is interrupted. With the transfer of the enforcement cases from the courts to the enforcement agents, the limitation period is interrupted.

10. With the acceptance of the enforcement case, the enforcement agent accepts the case in the phase in which it was in front of the court. The enforcement activities undertaken by the court have the same legal value as if they were undertaken by the enforcement agent who continues with the enforcement. With the acceptance of the enforcement case, the enforcement agent accepts the case in the phase in which it was in front of the court. The enforcement activities undertaken by the court have the same legal value as if they were undertaken by the enforcement agent who continues with the enforcement. Following the acceptance of the case, the enforcement agent is obliged to inform the debtor that the enforcement initiated in front of the court, continues with the enforcement agent. Following the acceptance of the case, the enforcement agent is obliged to inform the debtor that the enforcement initiated in front of the court, continues with the enforcement agent.

11. When the creditor gives a statement in front of the court about the choice of the enforcement agent, the court is obliged to make an inventory of all the activities undertaken, as well as an inventory of the writings forming part of the enforcement case and the costs paid by the court, to adopt a conclusion for delivery of the case to the enforcement agent and to deliver the case to the indicated enforcement agent in a period of eight days. When the creditor gives a statement in front of the court about the choice of the enforcement agent, the court is obliged to make an inventory of all the activities undertaken, as well as an inventory of the writings forming part of the enforcement case and the costs paid by the court, to adopt a conclusion for delivery of the case to the enforcement agent and to deliver the case to the indicated enforcement agent in a period of eight days.

12. The costs for which there is proof that have been paid in the court, will be acknowledged to the creditor and the enforcement agent is obliged to pay it from the debtor and transfer it to the creditor. The costs for which there is proof that have been paid in the court, will be acknowledged to the creditor and the enforcement agent is obliged to pay it from the debtor and transfer it to the creditor. The obligation for payment of fee for administration in those cases in which there is proof that the creditor had paid the court tax, will be paid by the debtor. The obligation for payment of fee for administration in those cases in which there is proof that the creditor had paid the court tax, will be paid by the debtor.

13. The requests for enforcement submitted prior to 26 th of May 2006, which are not final and the requests for enforcement submitted by virtue of an authenticated certificate, in respect of which there is no final decision on enforcement brought, court delivers to the notary public who proceeds as its trustee. The requests for enforcement submitted prior to 26 th of May 2006, which are not final and the requests for enforcement submitted by virtue of an authenticated certificate, in respect of which there is no final decision on enforcement brought, court delivers to the notary public who proceeds as its trustee.

14. Notary public delivers the decision on enforcement to the debtor, with a legal remark that within a period of eight days he has a right to complain, through the notary public to the court, which remitted the case. Notary public delivers the decision on enforcement to the debtor, with a legal remark that within a period of eight days he has a right to complain, through the notary public to the court, which remitted the case. When the complaint is untimely, inadmissible and incomplete, notary public will dismiss it with a decision, against which an appeal could be filed within eight days to the court which remitted the case. When the complaint is untimely, inadmissible and incomplete, notary public will dismiss it with a decision, against which an appeal could be filed within eight days to the court which remitted the case.

15. With regards to actions for which a complaint was not filed, following the expiry of the prescribed period, notary public makes an attestation for finality and enforceability and delivers the decision to the creditor, by pointing to him that the time limit of six months starts to run. With regards to actions for which a complaint was not filed, following the expiry of the prescribed period, notary public makes an attestation for finality and enforceability and delivers the decision to the creditor, by pointing to him that the time limit of six months starts to run. The enforcement decision delivered by the court on grounds of authenticated certificate, which became final and enforceable, acquires capacity of enforcement title for payment of monetary claim. The enforcement decision delivered by the court on grounds of authenticated certificate, which became final and enforceable, acquires capacity of enforcement title for payment of monetary claim. Within a period of six months, the creditor is obliged to ask the court to make an attestation for finality and enforceability. Within a period of six months, the creditor is obliged to ask the court to make an attestation for finality and enforceability.

16. Those subjects who lead public books and registers are bound to act in accordance with the conclusion of the enforcement agent who continues with the enforcement, with a view to deleting or changing the data inserted in these books and registers on grounds of court decision. Those subjects who lead public books and registers are bound to act in accordance with the conclusion of the enforcement agent who continues with the enforcement, with a view to deleting or changing the data inserted in these books and registers on grounds of court decision.