FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 2107/15
Vesna ARSOVSKA
against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 10 July 2018 as a Committee composed of:
Aleš Pejchal, President,
Krzysztof Wojtyczek,
Jovan Ilievski, judges,
and Renata Degener, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 30 December 2014,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 7 February 2018 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:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
1. The applicant, Ms Vesna Arsovska, is a Macedonian national, who was born in 1972 and lives in Skopje. She was represented before the Court by Mr J. Apostolski, a lawyer practising in Skopje.
2. The Macedonian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms D. Djonova.
3. The applicant’s complaint under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention about a violation of her right to be presumed innocent was communicated to the Government.
THE LAW
4. After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 7 February 2018 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.
5. The declaration provided as follows:
“...In this situation the Government would hereby like to express – by a way of unilateral declaration – its acknowledgement that in the special circumstances of the present case, did not fulfil the requirements of the applicant’s rights protected by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention. Consequently, the Government is prepared to pay to the applicant Vesna Arsovska a sum of 3,330 EUR. In its view, this amount would constitute adequate redress and sufficient compensation for the violation of Article 6 § 2 in relation to her right to be presumed innocent, 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 costs and expenses and will be free of any taxes that may be applicable.
This sum will be payable to the 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, having in mind the terms of this declaration, 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.”
6. By a letter received at the Court’s Registry on 21 March 2018, the applicant indicated that she was not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration. She stated that it was justified to continue the examination of the case as it was significant for the development of the practice of the domestic courts and asked that the Court deliver a judgment finding a violation.
7. The Court reiterates that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified, under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. Article 37 § 1 (c) enables the Court in particular to strike a case out of its list if:
“for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.
8. It also reiterates that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued.
9. To this end, the Court has examined the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; WAZA Sp. z o.o. v. Poland (dec.), no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.), no. 28953/03, 18 September 2007).
10. The Court has established in a number of cases its practice concerning complaints about the violation of the presumption of innocence (see, among many others Allen v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 25424/09, § 126, ECHR 2013, and Geerings v. the Netherlands, no. 30810/03, § 42, 1 March 2007).
11. Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c)).
12. 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 the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
13. Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application could be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention (see Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).
14. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
Done in English and notified in writing on 6 September 2018.
Renata DegenerAleš Pejchal
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy