FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 36712/07
by Jule ATANASOVA
against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 13 September 2011 as a Committee composed of:
Anatoly Kovler, President,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos,
and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 9 August 2007,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Ms Jule Atanasova, is a Macedonian national who was born in 1944 and lives in Bitola. She was represented before the Court by Mr S. Risteski, a lawyer practising in Skopje. The Macedonian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs R. Lazareska Gerovska.
The case mainly concerned the length of criminal proceedings in which the applicant was charged with tax evasion and misappropriation. The proceedings began on 7 March 1997 and the applicant was detained two days later. On 1 June 1998 the Ohrid Court of First Instance convicted the applicant. Following two remittals, the proceedings ended on 23 February 2007 when the trial court terminated the proceedings as the statute of limitations had expired.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that she had been allegedly ill-treated by the police and humiliated by domestic judges. She further complained under Article 5 of the Convention and under Article 5 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 13 about the lawfulness of her detention. She also complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the length of the impugned proceedings and the assessment and admissibility of evidence. Relying on the same Convention the applicant alleged judges’ bias, violation of the equality of arms principle and that the domestic judgments had not been reasoned. The applicant further complained under Article 8 of the Convention that the State had failed to protect her right to private and family life as the case was widely publicised. She also complained under Article 13 of the Convention referring to the outcome of the proceedings. Invoking Article 14 of the Convention the applicant alleged she was discriminated against. She finally invoked Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
THE LAW
1. The applicant complained about the length of the criminal proceedings under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. This provision provides as follows:
“In the determination of... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
By letter dated 14 February 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, did not fulfil the requirement of the applicant rights protected by the Convention. Consequently, the Government is prepared to pay to the applicant Ms Jule Atanasova the global sum of 2,450 euros (two thousand, four hundred and fifty euros). In its view, this amount would constitute adequate redress and sufficient compensation for the violation indicated in the application, 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 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 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 28 April 2011 the applicant stated, inter alia, 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 issue, 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 Articles 3, 5, 6, 8, 13 and 14 as well as under 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 his 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 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