SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 27067/07
Suad HAMIDOVIĆ
against Serbia
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 1 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 19 June 2007,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 7 December 2012 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, Mr Suad Hamidović, is a Serbian national, who was born in 1971 and lives in Sjenica.
The Serbian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr S. Carić.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows:
On 26 September 2002 the applicant and J.P. signed a settlement before the Municipal Court (Opštinski sud) in Sjenica by which J.P. undertook to transfer to the applicant certain property, failing which he would pay to the applicant EUR 10,500 converted into national currency at the rate applicable on the date of payment. In addition, J.P. undertook to pay to the applicant RSD 12,500 on account of costs of the civil proceedings.
This court settlement became final on 20 October 2002.
On 3 December 2002 the Municipal Court in Stara Pazova, upon the applicant’s request to that effect, issued an enforcement order against J.P. in respect of the payment of the debt and costs of the civil proceedings, together with the default interest, and awarded the applicant an additional amount for the enforcement costs.
From the information available in the case file, it appears that the enforcement proceedings are still ongoing.
THE LAW
Without invoking any particular provision of the Convention, the applicant complained about the excessive length of the enforcement proceedings.
The complaint was communicated to the Government under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 7 December 2012 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 the Republic of Serbia is ready to accept that there had been a violation of the applicant’s right under Article 6 paragraph 1 of the Convention and offer to pay to the applicant, Mr Suad Hamidović, the amount of EUR 4,320 (four thousand three hundred twenty euros) to cover any and all non-pecuniary damage plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant in respect of the application registered under no. 27067/07 before the European Court of Human Rights.
This sum shall be payable within three months from the date of delivery of the decision of the Court. This payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.
The Government regret the occurrence of the actions which have led to the bringing of the present application.”
The applicant made no comment.
The Court recalls 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 recalls 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 applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued.
To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary issue) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; WAZA Spółka 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 Serbia, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one’s right to have a final court decision rendered in his/her favour enforced (see, for example, Hornsby v. Greece, 19 March 1997, § 41, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997‑II; Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, ECHR 2002-III; and EVT Company v. Serbia, no. 3102/05, §§ 46-49, 21 June 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, when account is taken of the fact that over nine years of the impugned enforcement proceedings fall within the Court’s competence ratione temporis (Serbia having ratified the Convention on 3 March 2004) the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1(c)).
Turning to the nature of the proposed redress, the Court interprets the Government’s declaration as meaning that the compensation proposed is to be paid within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision issued in accordance with Article 37 § 1 of the Convention and that, in the event of failure to settle within this period, simple interest shall be payable on the amount in question at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank plus three percentage points.
The Court further assumes that the Government also undertook to ensure that the enforcement proceedings which are still pending domestically are concluded rapidly, whilst safeguarding the proper administration of justice.
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). Accordingly, it should be struck out of the list.
It is to be noted that this decision is without prejudice to the merits of the applicant’s domestic claim or, indeed, his ability to obtain redress for any additional procedural delay which may occur after the date of the present decision.
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).
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration under Article 6 § 1 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.
Seçkin Erel Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy