SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 77903/12
Miljka BOROJEVIĆ
against Croatia
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 28 June 2016 as a Committee composed of:
Paul Lemmens, President,
Ksenija Turković,
Jon Fridrik Kjølbro, judges,
and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 31 August 2012,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 24 August 2015 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 Miljka Borojević, is a Croatian national, who was born in 1962 and lives in Beli Manastir. She was represented before the Court by Mr R. Vučković, a lawyer practising in Osijek.
2. The Croatian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms Š. Stažnik.
3. The applicant’s complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of proceedings before the Constitutional Court was communicated to the Government.
THE LAW
4. After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 24 August 2015, the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by that complaint. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
5. The relevant part of the declaration provided that the Government:
“(a) acknowledges that in the instant case there has been a violation of the applicant’s right to a fair trial within a reasonable time, guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention; and
(b) is ready to pay the amount of 2,250 euros to cover any and all damage as well as costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.
This sum will be converted into Croatian kunas at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights to the account indicated by the applicant. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertakes to pay simple interest on it, from expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.”
6. By a letter of 15 September 2015, the applicant indicated that she was not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration as the sum offered by the Government was too low and thus did not constitute appropriate compensation for the violation complained of.
7. The Court observes that Article 37 § 1 (c) enables it 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 applications”.
8. Thus, it may strike out applications under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicants wish the examination of the cases to be continued (see the principles emerging from the Court’s case-law, and in particular the Tahsin Acar v. Turkey judgment ([GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI)).
9. The Court has established clear and extensive case-law concerning complaints relating to the excessive length of proceedings (see, for example, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII; Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 69-98; Oršuš and Others v. Croatia [GC], no. 15766/03, §§ 45-49, ECHR 2010; and Šikić v. Croatia, no. 9143/08, §§ 33-38, 15 July 2010).
10. Noting the admission contained in the Government’s declarations 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)).
11. 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).
12. 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 (Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).
13. 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 § 1 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 21 July 2016.
Hasan BakırcıPaul Lemmens
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy