Admissibility of digital communications as evidence in North Macedonia’s civil procedure

Ljupka Noveska Andonova
Partner, Qoku & Partners in cooperation with Karanovic & Partners, Skopje 
ljupka.noveska@karanovicpartners.com

Bojana Paneva
Senior Associate, Qoku & Partners in cooperation with Karanovic & Partners, Skopje
bojana.paneva@karanovicpartners.com

Filip Acevski
Associate, Qoku & Partners in cooperation with Karanovic & Partners, Skopje
filip.acevski@karanovicpartners.com

Anastasija Velikoska
Associate, Qoku & Partners in cooperation with Karanovic & Partners, Skopje
anastasija.velikoska@karanovicpartners.com

Digital communications in civil procedure

In modern civil litigation, electronic communications are often among the most important sources of evidence. Parties negotiate by email, communicate through messaging applications, and create extensive digital records in the ordinary course of business. Such evidence may take different forms, including text, images, video, and audio recordings. In practice, common examples include emails, instant messages, and video files created or stored on electronic devices.¹  In many disputes, those records provide the clearest evidence of what was said, agreed, or expected. The key question is therefore whether, and on what basis, such materials may be used in Macedonian civil proceedings.

The answer is broadly positive. The Law on Civil Procedure adopts a wide concept of a document, covering written records, images, data, and information preserved on paper or in electronic, audio, visual, or other form.²  Although court practice is not entirely uniform in its treatment of digital evidence, digital communications are not excluded simply because they exist in electronic rather than paper form.

Moreover, the Law on Electronic Documents, Electronic Identification and Trust Services defines an electronic document broadly, covering documents stored in electronic form, including textual, audio, visual, and audiovisual records.³  Although the legal framework still reflects traditional evidentiary categories, digital records are clearly capable of serving as documentary evidence in civil proceedings.⁴ 

Admissibility versus evidential weight

In practice, the more difficult issue is usually not whether a digital communication may be submitted, but what weight the court should give to it as broad admissibility does not mean automatically granting evidential weight.

Digital evidence should not be refused merely because it exists in electronic form, nor should the absence of an advanced or qualified electronic signature automatically prevent the court from considering it. The more important questions arise at the stage of evidential assessment. A screenshot may appear clear and persuasive yet still leave open important questions. Who created it, and at what time? Does it reflect the complete conversation? Has any part of the exchange been deleted, edited, or taken out of context? Can the communication be linked reliably to a particular person, device, or account? Courts should also remain attentive to the probative significance of metadata, as well as to the limitations that arise where such data is not examined.

Another practical issue concerns the manner in which the digital communication was obtained. Widespread use of digital technologies in everyday life may lead to courts encountering situations where communications have been accessed or collected in questionable ways. Macedonian civil procedure does not recognise a general doctrine of 'illegally obtained evidence',⁵ however, the circumstances in which the communication is accessed or presented may raise concerns regarding its reliability and evidential value. Issues often arise where communications are obtained without the knowledge of the other party. While such circumstances do not necessarily render the evidence inadmissible, they may affect the weight the court ultimately assigns to it.

For that reason, digital evidence should, where possible, be presented in its original electronic format rather than only through printouts. Its probative value will often depend on the surrounding circumstances, the manner in which it is presented, and whether it is supported by other evidence.⁶  The increasing use of AI-assisted review tools adds a further layer of complexity. AI-assisted tools can help identify, sort and analyse large volumes of digital communications more efficiently. However, they may also increase the risk that relevant context is overlooked or that records are assessed in an incomplete or fragmented manner. This makes questions of authenticity, completeness, and context even more important in practice.

Practical challenges

From a litigation strategy perspective, parties relying on digital communications should consider several practical steps. They should present the material in a way that supports its credibility, including by identifying the source device or account, preserving the original format where possible, and submitting the full chain of communication rather than isolated excerpts. This is important because digital messages are easy to present selectively. A single screenshot may be genuine yet still create a misleading picture if earlier exchanges, later clarifications, attachments, or parallel communications are missing. In many disputes, the decisive material is often not limited to one screenshot already in the claimant’s possession. It may be stored on a company server, in another person’s mailbox, on a mobile device, or within a broader chain of messages needed to understand the exchange fairly. In practice, challenges to such evidence are therefore likely to focus on authorship, completeness, continuity, context, and the manner in which the material was obtained. 

A useful illustration from Macedonian court practice⁷ is a judgment in which the court refused to treat photographed Viber messages as sufficient proof. The court found that the messages did not reliably establish the identity of the sender, as they showed only a first name and lacked further identifying details such as surname, telephone number, date or time of sending, or evidence linking the account or number to the defendant. It also held that the claimant had not proved to whom the messages had been sent or that they referred to the claimant with a clearly identifiable identity. On that basis, the court concluded that the burden of proof had not been reached.

Another example from Macedonian court practice⁸ shows that Viber communications may be relevant where their content clearly supports the factual background of the dispute. The court relied on a Viber exchange to establish that the claimant had requested payment for delivered goods and that the defendant had not disputed the delivery notes, even though he contested the orders. The messages were therefore treated as part of the broader evidentiary picture in assessing the parties’ relationship and the disputed obligation.

Digital communications can be highly persuasive, but they may also mislead if presented selectively. A single message may omit earlier exchanges, later clarifications, attachments, or parallel communications that affect its meaning. For that reason, digital evidence should be presented as completely and clearly as possible. Local civil procedure provides mechanisms that may assist in this respect, including the production of relevant material held by another party or third person in the cases provided by law, and expert evidence if authenticity, manipulation, or metadata become relevant.

Conclusion

North Macedonia’s civil procedure appears sufficiently flexible to accommodate digital communications as evidence. The existing rules do not exclude them simply because they are in digital form, and the broad concept of a document supports their use in civil proceedings. The more difficult questions arise in practice, particularly in relation to authenticity, completeness, reliability, and procedural fairness. Similar considerations may arise where digital communications have been obtained in questionable circumstances, as local rules of civil procedure do not recognise a general doctrine of illegally obtained evidence, leaving such issues primarily to the court’s assessment of evidential weight. As digital communications and AI assume an increasingly prominent role in everyday life and continue to shape commercial and private interaction, these issues are likely to become even more important in civil litigation. The key task for courts will be to approach such material in a way that is both technically informed and procedurally balanced, while avoiding overly formal objections on the one hand and uncritical reliance on electronic records on the other. In that respect, greater consistency in judicial treatment would be a welcome step in aligning evidentiary practice with the realities of modern communication.

Notes

1. Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, Electronic Evidence in Civil and Administrative Proceedings, 30 January 2019, see: https://rm.coe.int/guidelines-on-electronic-evidence-and-explanatory-memorandum/1680968ab5 
2. Law on Civil Procedure, Art. 215-a (“Official Gazette of the Republic of Macedonia no. 79/05 as amended).
3. Law on Electronic Documents, Electronic Identification and Trust Services, Art. 3(1) 3) (“Official Gazette of the Republic of North Macedonia no. 101/19, as amended).
4. T. Zoroska Kamilovska, National Report for North Macedonia on Electronic Evidence and Videoconferencing, Ss. Cyril and Methodius University in Skopje Faculty of Law 'Iustinianus Primus' see: north_macedonia_evidence_final.pdf 
5. T. Zoroska Kamilovska, T. Micevska, The Admissibility of Illegally Obtained Evidence in Civil Procedure: To What  Extent the End Justifies the Means, Ss. Cyril and Methodius University in Skopje Faculty of Law 'Iustinianus Primus', see: https://www.academia.edu/108048875.
6. Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, Electronic Evidence in Civil and Administrative Proceedings, 30 January 2019, see: https://rm.coe.int/guidelines-on-electronic-evidence-and-explanatory-memorandum/1680968ab5 
7. Basic Court Shtip, Judgment P5.no.3/23, 1 March 2024
8. Basic Civil Court Skopje, Judgment 51PL1-TS-801/21, 21 January 2022.