FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 11795/06
Slavica KOTESKA and others
against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 17 September 2013 as a Committee composed of:
Elisabeth Steiner, President,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,
Ksenija Turković, judges,
and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 8 March 2006,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicants, Ms Slavica Koteska (“the first applicant”), Ms Ljiljana Ivanovska (“the second applicant”), Ms Marija Ivanovska (“the third applicant”), Ms Mirjana Jovanova (“the fourth applicant”), Mr Zlatko Jovanovski (“the fifth applicant”), Mr Dobre Tajkovski (“the sixth applicant”), Mr Dimce Trajkovski (“the seventh applicant”), Mr Dragan Trajkovski (“the eighth applicant”), Ms Marija Trajkovska (“the ninth applicant”) and Ms Nadica Jokic (“the tenth applicant”) are Macedonian nationals who were born in 1920, 1950, 1926, 1953, 1955, 1936, 1943, 1959, 1940 and 1947 respectively. All applicants live in Skopje except the fifth and tenth applicant who live in Australia and Serbia respectively. They are represented before the Court by Mr V. Serdjuk, a lawyer practising in Skopje. Mr Serdjuk did not submit a duly signed letter of attorney in respect of the third, sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth applicants despite the repeated requests by the Registry in this respect.
The Macedonian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr K. Bogdanov.
The applicants complained about the length and the outcome of the civil proceedings initiated by them or by their predecessors.
On 14 September 2011 the application was communicated to the Government.
On 16 January 2012 the Government submitted its observations in which they objected that the application, in respect of the third, sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth applicants, should be declared incompatible ratione personae since no letter of attorney had been submitted. The applicants’ representative invited the Court to decide “in accordance with the Court’s practice”.
On 7 May 2012 and 13 April 2013 the Court received friendly settlement declarations signed by the parties under which the first, second, fourth, fifth and tenth applicants agreed to waive any further claims against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in respect of the facts giving rise to this application against an undertaking by the Government to pay each of these applicants a sum of 3,000 euros to cover any non-pecuniary damage, as well as costs and expenses, which would be converted into the national currency at the rate applicable on the date of payment and would be free of any taxes that may be applicable. It 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 LAW
In the absence of a valid letter of authority regarding the third, sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth applicants, the Court finds the application, in the relevant part, incompatible ratione personae (see Post v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 21727/08, ECHR 20 January 2009).
It further takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the respondent Government and the first, second, fourth, fifth and tenth applicants. 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 regarding these applicants. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list in respect of these applicants.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares the application inadmissible ratione personae in respect of the third, sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth applicant.
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in respect of the first, second, fourth, fifth and tenth applicant in accordance with Article 39 of the Convention.
André WampachElisabeth Steiner
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy