SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 27875/16
Luiza CANEVA against North Macedonia
and 25 other applications
(see list appended)
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 11 April 2023 as a Committee composed of:
Lorraine Schembri Orland, President,
Jovan Ilievski,
Diana Sârcu, judges,
and Dorothee von Arnim, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table,
Having regard to the declarations submitted by the respondent Government between 25 February and 8 June 2021 requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases and the applicants’ reply to those declarations,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
1. A list of the applicants, all Macedonians/citizens of the Republic of North Macedonia, is set out in the appendix. They are all represented by Ms D. Chakarovska-Grozdanovska, a lawyer practicing in Skopje. The applicant in applications nos. 53217/17 and 55495/17, Ms M. Anastasova, died in 2021. Her son, Mr I. Anastasovski, expressed the intention to pursue the applications and authorised Ms D. Chakarovska-Grozdanovska to represent him in the proceedings before the Court.
2. The respondent Government were represented by their Agent, Ms D. Djonova.
3. The applicants’ complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention concerning the payment of a standing heating charge for their flats was communicated to the Government of North Macedonia (“the Government”).
THE LAW
4. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.
5. In accordance with its well-established case-law on the matter (see, inter alia, Trivkanović v. Croatia (no. 2), no. 54916/16, §§ 44-47, 21 January 2021), the Court considers that the son of the applicant Ms M. Anastasova, a close family member, has standing to pursue the proceedings in that applicant’s stead.
6. After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by letters submitted between 25 February and 8 June 2021 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the applications. They further requested the Court to strike out the applications in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
7. The unilateral declarations provided as follows:
“... the Government would hereby like to express – by a way of unilateral declaration – its acknowledgement that the impugned proceedings did not fulfil the requirements of the applicant’s rights protected by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention...
This sum is to cover any and all non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant. This sum will be converted into national currency at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court decision pursuant to Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention...
...According to the case-law of the Court, it may be appropriate under certain circumstances to strike out an application under Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention on the basis of a unilateral declaration filed by the respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued.
... 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 applications.
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(s) out of its list of cases.”
The amounts proposed in the unilateral declarations, submitted for each applicant individually, are set out in the appendix.
8. By letters of 25 April, 3 June and 18 June 2021, the applicants, through their legal representative, indicated that they were not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration on the ground that, in accordance with the relevant domestic law applicable at the time, a strike-out decision of the Court would prevent them from seeking the reopening of the domestic proceedings against them. They also claimed that the sum offered by the Government did not in itself constitute an adequate redress for the violation complained of.
9. By a subsequent letter of 3 November 2022, the applicants’ legal representative informed the Court that due to the revocation of the operating licence of the private heating company, the applicants no longer considered that reopening of the civil proceedings would serve the purpose of obtaining any redress at domestic level.
10. 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 applications”.
11. It also reiterates that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an 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.
12. To this end, the Court has to examine 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).
13. It further reiterates that in a number of cases in which the possibility to request reopening of domestic proceedings would have constituted an appropriate form of redress, it has refused to accept unilateral declarations if the right to apply for reopening of domestic proceedings following the Court’s decision to strike out a case on that basis was not guaranteed to an applicant in domestic law as it would be for an applicant in respect of whom the Court delivered a judgment (see Šarić and Others v. Croatia, nos. 38767/07 and 22 others, §§ 26-29, 18 October 2011, and Aviakompaniya A.T.I., ZAT v. Ukraine, no. 1006/07, §§ 33-34, 5 October 2017 with further references).
14. The Court has established clear case-law concerning complaints relating to the interference with the right to property, in particular in cases brought against North Macedonia similar to the present applications (see Strezovski and Others v. North Macedonia, nos. 14460/16 and 7 others, 27 February 2020).
15. Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration, the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – as well as the applicants’ submissions of 3 November 2022, in which they considered that reopening of the civil proceedings would no longer serve the purpose of obtaining any redress at domestic level (see paragraph 9 above), the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the applications (Article 37 § 1 (c)).
16. 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 applications (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
17. The Court considers that the amounts awarded in the unilateral declaration should be converted into the national currency at the rate applicable at the date of payment, and paid within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision issued in accordance with Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to settle within this period, simple interest shall be payable on the amounts in question at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank plus three percentage points.
18. Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the applications 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).
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to join the applications;
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
Done in English and notified in writing on 11 May 2023.
{signature_p_2}
Dorothee von Arnim Lorraine Schembri Orland
Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
List of cases:
No.
Application no.
Case name
Lodged on
Applicant
Year of Birth
Place of Residence
Represented by
Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant/household (in euros)[1]
1.
27875/16
Caneva v. North Macedonia
09/05/2016
Luiza CANEVA
1965
Skopje
Danche CHAKAROVSKA-GROZDANOVSKA
1,035
2.
41424/16
Veleski v. North Macedonia
14/07/2016
Blagoja VELESKI
1951
Skopje
855
3.
41444/16
Anastasovski v. North Macedonia
14/07/2016
Aco ANASTASOVSKI
1949
Skopje
855
4.
43410/16
Anastasovski v. North Macedonia
14/07/2016
Aco ANASTASOVSKI
1949
Skopje
855
5.
54523/16
Veleski v. North Macedonia
07/09/2016
Blagoja VELESKI
1951
Skopje
855
6.
54525/16
Veleski v. North Macedonia
07/09/2016
Blagoja VELESKI
1951
Skopje
855
7.
76320/16
Nenov v. North Macedonia
02/12/2016
Marjan NENOV
1976
Skopje
855
8.
76341/16
Mihajlovska v. North Macedonia
02/12/2016
Aleksandra MIHAJLOVSKA
1977
Skopje
990
9.
76354/16
Naumov v. North Macedonia
02/12/2016
Sande NAUMOV
1961
Skopje
855
10.
77254/16
Naumov v. North Macedonia
02/12/2016
Sande NAUMOV
1961
Skopje
855
11.
16068/17
Nenov v. North Macedonia
21/02/2017
Marjan NENOV
1976
Skopje
855
12.
16069/17
Nenov v. North Macedonia
21/02/2017
Marjan NENOV
1976
Skopje
855
13.
16070/17
Anastasovski v. North Macedonia
21/02/2017
Aco ANASTASOVSKI
1949
Skopje
855
14.
16288/17
Misovski v. North Macedonia
21/02/2017
Zoran MISOVSKI
1953
Skopje
810
15.
16289/17
Misovski v. North Macedonia
21/02/2017
Zoran MISOVSKI
1953
Skopje
810
16.
53090/17
Dameska v. North Macedonia
21/07/2017
Jadranka DAMESKA
1958
Skopje
990
17.
53217/17
Anastasovski and Anastasova v. North Macedonia
21/07/2017
Marija ANASTASOVA
Born:1941
Deceased: 2021
Skopje
Heir:
Igor ANASTASOVSKI
1967
Skopje
810
18.
55495/17
Anastasovski and Anastasova v. North Macedonia
21/07/2017
Marija ANASTASOVA
Born:1941
Deceased: 2021
Skopje
Heir:
Igor ANASTASOVSKI
1967
Skopje
810
19
.
12477/18
Trajkovski v. North Macedonia
06/03/2018
Radojko TRAJKOVSKI
1945
Skopje
675
20.
13560/18
Nenov v. North Macedonia
14/03/2018
Marjan NENOV
1976
Skopje
855
21.
31263/18
Naumov v. North Macedonia
26/06/2018
Sande NAUMOV
1961
Skopje
855
22.
31268/18
Naumov v. North Macedonia
26/06/2018
Sande NAUMOV
1961
Skopje
855
23.
38108/18
Trajkovski v. North Macedonia
06/08/2018
Radojko TRAJKOVSKI
1945
Skopje
675
24.
57165/18
Nenov v. North Macedonia
27/11/2018
Marjan NENOV
1976
Skopje
855
25.
25883/19
Trajkovski v. North Macedonia
09/05/2019
Radojko TRAJKOVSKI
1945
Skopje
675
26.
43850/20
Nenov v. North Macedonia
21/09/2020
Marjan NENOV
1976
Skopje
720
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants