FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 17395/10
Zlate GORGIEV and Hristo HRISTOV
against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 6 May 2014 as a Committee composed of:
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque, President,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,
Ksenija Turković, judges,
and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 20 March 2010,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 17 June 2013 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicants’ reply to that declaration,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicants, Mr Zlate Gorgiev and Mr Hristo Hristov, are Macedonian and Bulgarian nationals, respectively, who were born in 1959 and live in Kočani and Pleven. They were represented before the Court by Mr J. Madžunarov, a lawyer practising in Štip.
The Macedonian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr K. Bogdanov.
The Bulgarian Government, who had been informed of their right to intervene in the proceedings, under Article 36 § 1 of the Convention, gave no indication that they wished to do so.
The applicants complained under Article 6 about compensation proceedings. The complaint under Article 6 about the length of the proceedings was communicated to the respondent Government.
After unsuccessful friendly-settlement negotiations, by letter dated 17 June 2013 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a 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 fulfill the requirements of the applicants’ rights protected by the Convention. Consequently, the Government is prepared to pay a sum of 3,600 EUR (three thousand and six hundred) to each of the two applicants (Mr Zlate Georgiev and Mr Hristo Hristov). In its view, this amount would constitute adequate redress and sufficient compensation for the violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the domestic proceedings lasted unreasonably long, and 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 applicants 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.”
On 28 August 2013, the Court received a letter from the applicants informing the Court that they had agreed to the terms of the Government’s declaration.
THE LAW
1. Having regard to the applicants’ complaint about the length of the impugned proceedings, the Court considers that, following the applicants’ express agreement to the terms of the declaration made by the Government, the case should be treated as a friendly settlement between the parties.
It therefore takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties in so far as it relates to the above complaint. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no reasons to justify a continued examination of the application.
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list in so far as it relates to the above complaint.
2. Relying on Articles 6, the applicants also raised other complaints.
Having regard to all the evidence in its possession, and in so far as it has jurisdiction to examine the allegations, the Court has not found any appearance of a breach of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention or its Protocols.
It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 39 of the Convention in so far as it relates to the complaint about the length of the proceedings;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
André WampachPaulo Pinto de Albuquerque
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy