SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 45638/13
GAJ RAŠOVIĆ DOO
against Montenegro
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 22 November 2016 as a Committee composed of:
Valeriu Griţco, President,
Nebojša Vučinić,
Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, judges,
and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 26 March 2013,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 4 July 2016 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
The applicant, Gaj Rašović D.O.O., is privately held company, with the seat in Podgorica, Montenegro. It was represented before the Court by Mr D. Marković, a lawyer practising in Podgorica.
The Montenegrin Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms Valentina Pavličić.
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the length of its civil proceedings.
The application had been communicated to the Government on 16 December 2015.
THE LAW
The applicant complained about the length of civil proceedings. It relied on Article 6 of the Convention.
After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 4 July 2016 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:
“I declare that the Government of Montenegro herby wishes to express acknowledgement of the unreasonable duration of the domestic proceedings in which the applicant was involved and is ready to accept that there had been a violation of the applicant’s right under Article 6 of the Convention.
Consequently, the Government is ready to pay to D.O.O. Gaj Rašović, the amount of EUR 1,600 (one thousand six hundred euros), which it considers to be reasonable in the light of the Court’s case-law, less any amounts which may have already been paid in that regard at the domestic level in order to cover any non-pecuniary damage as well as [the] amount of EUR 500 (five hundred euros) jointly to cover any and all costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant in respect of the application registered under no. 45638/13 before the European Court of Human Rights.
This sum shall be payable within three months from the date of the delivery of the decision of the Court to strike the case out of its list of cases, as referred to in Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
These payments will constitute the final resolution of the actions which have led to the bringing of the present application.
The Government wishes to express regret for the occurrence of the actions which have led to the bringing of the present application.”
The applicant did not comment on the terms of the unilateral declaration.
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”.
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 applicants wish the examination of the case to be continued.
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).
The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Montenegro, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see, for example, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII; Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 69-98, ECHR 2006‑ V; Majewski v. Poland, no. 52690/99, 11 October 2005; and Wende and Kukówka v. Poland, no. 56026/00, 10 May 2007).
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)).
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).
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).
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 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 15 December 2016.
Hasan BakırcıValeriu Griţco
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy