FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 25962/06
by Kiril STOJANOVSKI
against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 17 March 2009 as a Chamber composed of:
Rait Maruste, President,
Karel Jungwiert,
Renate Jaeger,
Mark Villiger,
Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,
Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges,
and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 20 March 2006,
Having regard to the decision to grant priority to the above application under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court.
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 15 September 2008 requesting the Court to strike the length complaint out of the list of cases,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Kiril Stojanovski, is a Macedonian national who was born in 1938 and lives in Bitola. He is represented before the Court by Mr V. Petličkovski, a lawyer practising in Bitola. The Macedonian Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Mrs R. Lazareska Gerovska.
The case mainly concerns the length of civil proceedings in which the applicant claimed in particular, annulment of the incorporation and registration decisions of a private company. The proceedings started on 15 November 1999 and ended, on 5 December 2005 when the Court of Appeal’s decision of 28 October 2005 was served on the applicant.
Furthermore, on 19 July 2006 the public prosecutor rejected the applicant’s criminal complaint against managers of the company for non-execution of a court decision. He did not claim damages.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that his case had not been heard within a reasonable time. Invoking Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, he alleged that his shares, without his approval, had been used as a bank deposit by which the company’s managers secured money for themselves. Finally, in a letter received by the Court on 13 March 2008, the applicant alleged that he had not been summoned for the hearing fixed for 21 March 2005.
2. The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that he had not been given an opportunity to be present in person when the public prosecutor adopted the decision of 19 July 2006.
THE LAW
1. The applicant complained about the length of the civil proceedings under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. This provision provides as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
By letter dated 15 September 2008, the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by this part of the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
The declaration provided, inter alia, 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, the length of the domestic proceedings did not fulfill the requirement of ”reasonable time” referred to in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. Consequently, the Government is prepared to pay to the applicant the global sum of 1,610 euros (one thousand six hundred and ten euros). In its view, this amount would constitute adequate redress and sufficient compensation for the impugned length of the said proceedings, 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 an account named by the applicant within three months from the date of the notification of the 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”
The applicant did not provide any comment within the time-limit specified by the Registry.
Having regard to the Court’s practice in this field (see Petkovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 27314/04, 13 November 2008 and Ajvazi v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 30956/05, 13 November 2008) and to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed, which is compatible 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 this part of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine). Accordingly, it should be struck out of the list.
2. The applicant further complained under Article 6 of the Convention alleging unfairness of the criminal proceedings. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the applicant complained that his property rights over his shares had been infringed.
The Court has examined the remainder of the complaints as submitted by the applicant. However, having regard to all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that the applicant has failed to substantiate his complaints. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration in respect of the length-of-proceedings complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in so far as it relates to the above complaint in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Claudia WesterdiekRait Maruste
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy