Resolution CM/ResDH(2008)92[1]
Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights
Djidrovski and Veselinski against “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”
(Application No. 46447/99 and 45658/99, judgments of 24/02/2005, final on 24/05/2005)
The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);
Having regard to the judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee once they had become final;
Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in these cases concerns unjustified invalidation by Supreme Court of retired army servicemen’s right to buy apartments at a reduced price (see details in Appendix);
Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia’s” obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgments;
Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee’s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;
Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate, of
- individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and
- general measures preventing, similar violations;
DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix), that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases and
DECIDES to close the examination of these cases.
Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2008)92
Information about the measures taken to comply with the judgments
in the cases of Djidrovski and Veselinski against “ the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”
Introductory case summary
These cases concern an unjustified interference with the applicants’ right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. The applicants, both retired officers of the former Yugoslav army, had bought their flats from the government, in 1996 and 1995 respectively, at a preferential rate pursuant to the agreements concluded between the government and the former Yugoslav authorities, and to legislation passed for that purpose.
This preferential rate was the result of contributions they had paid to the former Yugoslav army for the construction of military flats under an arrangement according to which the army would cover any difference to be made up. The agreements reached stipulate among other things that the army of “the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” succeeded to the obligations of the former Yugoslav army.
In 1996, the Constitutional Court found the legislation adopted enabling the above-mentioned agreements unconstitutional.
Despite the fact that Constitutional Court’s decision had no retroactive effect, the Supreme Court, quashed the domestic court judgments authorising the applicants’ purchase of the flats at the preferential rate.
The Court found that the applicants had a “legitimate expectation” that they should benefit from this rate on account of their contributions and the legislation in force at the time. It considered that the Supreme Court had failed to take account of this legislation as well as of existing practice, without providing an explanation (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).
I.Just satisfaction and individual measures
a) Just satisfaction
Having regard to the exceptional circumstances of the case, in particular the fact that the disputed judgments of the Supreme Court have never been enforced by the government, the Court considered that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient compensation for any damage in the present cases.
b) Individual measures
The authorities of the respondent state indicated that the Public Attorney’s office had taken no initiative to enforce the Supreme Court’s judgments criticised by the Court and that the any attempt to enforce them would be now time-barred. The applicants have been enjoying the ownership of the flats without any obstacle. In both cases the relevant ownership rights have been registered in the official “cadastre of immovable property”. In these circumstances, the government considers that there is no longer risk of violation of the applicants’ property rights in respect of the flats at issue.
Finally, it is noted that the applicants have not requested reopening of the domestic proceedings, a possibility provided by Article 400 of the Law on Litigation Procedure (Official Journal No. 79/05, in force as from 01/01/2006). According to this provision reopening of all domestic proceedings is now possible in all cases where the Court has found a violation of the Convention. In this context, all domestic courts are bound to fully comply with the Court’s case law.
II.General measures
The authorities of the respondent state informed the Committee of Ministers that the Court’s judgments in these cases were immediately translated and sent out to all relevant authorities: the Ministry of Defence, the Public Attorney’s office, the Supreme Court, the Skopje Court of Appeal, the Skopje and Bitola First-Instance Courts. In addition, the Court’s judgments in the present cases were studied within the Training Project for Judges and Public Prosecutors organised by the Council of Europe, Civil Society Information Centre, Associations of Judges and Public Prosecutors and Continued Education Centre. The judgments were also published on the website of the Ministry of Justice () and in a brochure “Impact of the European Convention for Human Rights on National Law and Case-law”, which was made available to judges and public prosecutors through their associations.
As a result of the direct application of the Convention in “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” it is unlikely that similar violations will occur in the future.
III.Conclusions of the respondent state
The government considers that the measures taken have fully remedied the consequences for the applicants of the violations of the Convention found by the Court in these cases, that these measures will prevent new, similar violations and that “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.
[1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 October 2008 at the 1035th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy