Communicated on 12 May 2014
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 2319/14
Olga KITANOVSKA STANOJKOVIC and others
against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
lodged on 31 December 2013
STATEMENT OF FACTS
A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
As established in the criminal proceedings described below, on 25 October 2011 at 1:30 a.m., S.G. and F.T., the latter being minor at the time, entered into the applicants’ house in the village B. (near Skopje) with the intention to rob them. During the incident they were wearing black masks. V.K., the father of the second and third applicants and the first applicant’s husband, opened the door. S.G. hit him at the head and hands with a metal hammer. V.K. sustained serious head injuries (multiple head injuries; skull fractures and brain haemorrhaging) as a result of which he died on 1 November 2011. S.G. then assaulted L.J., the applicants’ daughter and sister, hitting her at the head. She felt down pretending that she was dead. The first applicant, provoked by L.J.’s screaming, arrived in the room where the incident was taking place. F.T. punched her several times inflicting on her severe head injuries (multiple head wounds, skull fractures and brain haemorrhaging). The applicants were examined at the trial. The second applicant stated that she could not recognise her mother when she had visited her in hospital.
On 7 June 2012 the Skopje Court of First Instance convicted S.G. and F.T. of robbery and sentenced them to six and five years’ imprisonment respectively. In so doing it relied on section 237(4) of the Criminal Code which concerns a robbery with lethal consequences. It further advised the first applicant and L.J. to pursue their compensation claim by means of a separate civil action for damages. S.G. did not appeal against that judgment. On 26 November 2012 the Skopje Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by F.T.’s lawyer and confirmed the trial court’s judgment. On 12 March 2013 the Supreme Court dismissed as ill-founded a request by F.T. for extraordinary review of the final judgment.
The applicants allege that the prison penalty in respect of F.T. was not executed. He was at liberty and lived in his house in village B. nearby the house where the incident of 25 October 2011 had happened.
In November 2013 the applicants unsuccessfully attempted to receive information whether F.T. started serving the sentence because, as having been informed allegedly by the court, they had not been parties to the criminal proceedings.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complain that F.T. has not yet started serving the prison penalty despite the fact that his conviction became final after the Skopje Court of Appeal’s judgment of 26 November 2012. The non-execution of the prison penalty entailed the responsibility of the respondent State under the positive (procedural) limb of Article 2 of the Convention. By having failed to execute the sanction, the respondent State violated the applicants’ right to respect for their private and family life under Article 8 of the Convention. It was so since F.T. was at liberty and continued living in the village B. close to the applicants’ house. It was therefore impossible for them, in particular for the first applicant, to return to their house. Lastly, they alleged lack of an effective remedy, as required under Article 13, regarding the non-execution of the prison penalty in respect to F.T.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has the prison penalty imposed on F.T. by the trial court’s judgment of 7 June 2012, which became final on 26 November 2012, been executed? If not, the Government are invited to explain the reasons for the non-execution of that penalty.
2. Having regard to the States’ positive (procedural) obligations under Article 2 of the Convention, has the alleged non-execution of the prison penalty in respect of F.T. been in breach of Article 2 of the Convention?
3. Has the alleged non-execution of F.T.’s prison penalty violated the applicants’ rights under Article 8 of the Convention?
4. Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Articles 2 and 8, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
Appendix
1. Ms Olga Kitanovska Stanojkovic (“the first applicant”) is a Macedonian national who was born in 1936, lives in Ponthierry, France and represented by Mr C. Meyer, a lawyer practising in Strasbourg, France;
2. Ms Svetlana Audigier (“the second applicant”) is a Macedonian national who was born in 1967, lives in Ponthierry and represented by Mr C. Meyer;
3. Ms Olivera Menart (“the third applicant”) is a Macedonian national who was born in 1970, lives in Massy, France and represented by represented by Mr C. Meyer.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy