SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 18372/07
Milomir GUDURIĆ
against Serbia
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 15 October 2013 as a Committee composed of:
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque, President,
Dragoljub Popović,
Helen Keller, judges,
and, Seçkin Erel, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 11 April 2007,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case and the applicant’s successors’ statements in that regard,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Milomir Gudurić, was a Serbian national, who was born in 1940 and lived in Priboj.
The Serbian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr S. Carić.
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the failure of the respondent State to enforce a final judgment rendered in his favour against a socially-owned enterprise.
On 4 January 2012 and 5 January 2012 the Court received friendly settlement declarations signed by the parties under which the applicant agreed to waive any further claims against Serbia in respect of the facts giving rise to this application against an undertaking by the Government to pay him EUR 6,200 (six thousand two hundred euros) to cover any non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, which will be converted into the domestic currency at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. This sum will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on it, from the 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.
The parties, furthermore, agreed that within the said three-month period the Government will pay, from their own funds, the sums awarded in the domestic decision adopted by the Municipal Court (Opštinski sud) in Priboj on 24 May 2001 (domestic case no. P.745-2001), less any amounts which may have already been paid on the basis of the said decision, plus the costs of the domestic enforcement proceedings. These payments will constitute the final resolution of the cases pending before the European Court of Human Rights.
By letter of 10 May 2012 the applicant’s widow, Ms Savka Šalipur and his sons Mr Predrag Gudurić and Mr Zvonko Gudurić informed the Court that the applicant had died on 25 December 2011, four days after having signed the friendly settlement declaration described above. They also expressed a wish to pursue the application in the applicant’s stead and they fully agreed with the terms of the friendly settlement reached between the applicant and the respondent State.
THE LAW
The Court has previously accepted that the late applicants’ close relatives could maintain applications with complaints concerning various aspects of Article 6 of the Convention provided they have a sufficient interest in so doing (see Raimondo v. Italy, 22 February 1994, Series A no. 281‑A; Andreyeva v. Russia (dec.), no. 76737/01, 16 October 2003; Mihailov v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 52367/99, 9 September 2004; Stojkovic v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”, no. 14818/02, § 26, 8 November 2007; and Grosz v. France (dec.), no. 14717/06, 16 June 2009).
The Court notes that in the instant case the applicant’s widow, Ms Savka Šalipur, and his two sons Mr Predrag Gudurić and Mr Zvonko Gudurić, are the applicant’s next of kin and his legal heirs. The Court therefore considers that they have a legitimate interest in pursuing the application and, thus, have the requisite locus standi under Article 34 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Marčić and Others v. Serbia, no. 17556/05, § 39, 30 October 2007).
The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. The Court 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. Moreover, the Court considers that the amounts specified in the friendly settlement declarations shall be paid to the deceased applicant’s estate.
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases pursuant to Article 39 of the Convention.
S. ErelPaulo Pinto de Albuquerque
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy