FIRST SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 657/05
by Žaklina ANASTASOVSKA
against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 28 June 2011 as a Committee composed of:
Anatoly Kovler, President,
George Nicolaou,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, judges,
and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 14 December 2004,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 14 January 2011 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicant’s reply to that declaration,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Ms Žaklina Anastasovska is a Macedonian national who was born in 1970 and lives in Kriva Palanka. She was represented before the Court by Mr T. Torov, a lawyer practising in Štip. The Macedonian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs R. Lazareska Gerovska.
The case mainly concerned the length of civil proceedings in which the applicant claimed annulment of her dismissal. The proceedings began on 15 June 1993 and ended on 20 August 2004 (date of service).
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that her case had not been heard within a reasonable time. Relying on the same provision she further complained about the assessment and admissibility of evidence, judges’ bias, insufficient reasons and that the principle of equality of arms and right to have public hearing had been violated. Moreover, she alleged lack of an effective remedy under Article 13 of the Convention in respect of the length of the proceedings. Finally, the applicant invoked Article 1 of Protocol No 1 of the Convention.
THE LAW
1. The applicant complained about the length of the civil proceedings under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. This provision provides as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”
The applicant also complained under Article 13 of the Convention that he had no effective remedy whereby she could raise the issue of the excessive length of the proceedings. This provision provides as follows:
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”
By letter dated 14 January 2011 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
The declaration provided as follows:
“... the Government would hereby like to express – by a way of unilateral declaration – its acknowledgement that in the special circumstances of the present case, the length of the domestic proceedings did not fulfil the requirement of ”reasonable time” referred to in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, as well as the right to an effective remedy referred to in Article 13 of the Convention. Consequently, the Government is prepared to pay to the applicant Ms Žaklina Anastasovska the global sum of 1,470 euros (one thousand four hundred and seventy euros). In its view, this amount would constitute adequate redress and sufficient compensation for the impugned length of the said proceedings, and thus a reasonable sum as to quantum in the present case in the light of the Court’s case law. This sum is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as the costs and expenses and will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. This sum will be payable to personal account of the applicant within three months from the date of the notification of the Court decision pursuant to Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention ... In the light of the above and in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention the Government would like to suggest that the circumstances of the present case allow the Court to reach the conclusion that for “any other reason” it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application. Moreover, there are no reasons of a general character, as defined in Article 37 § 1 in fine, which would require the further examination of the case by virtue of that provision. Therefore, the Government invites the Court to strike the application out of its list of cases.”
In a letter received by the Court on 25 February 2011 the applicant stated that she did not agree with the declaration since she had also lodged other complaints apart from the one about the length of the proceedings.
Having regard to the Court’s practice in this field (see Petkovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 27314/04, 13 November 2008 and Ajvazi v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 30956/05, 13 November 2008) and to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed, which is compatible with the amounts awarded in similar cases, the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of this part of the application (Article 37 § 1(c)).
Moreover, in light of the above considerations, and in particular given the clear and extensive case-law on the topic, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of this part of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine). Accordingly, it should be struck out of the list.
2. The applicant further complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the assessment and admissibility of evidence, judges’ bias, insufficient reasons and that the principle of equality of arms and right to have public hearing had been violated. Moreover, the applicant invoked Article 1 of Protocol No 1 of the Convention.
The Court has examined the remainder of the complaints as submitted by the applicant. However, having regard to all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that the applicant has failed to substantiate her complaints. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration in respect of the length-of-proceedings complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and in respect of the right to an effective remedy under Article 13 of the Convention and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike this part of the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
André WampachAnatoly Kovler
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy