THIRD SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 38202/02
by Angel LICKOV
against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 27 May 2004 as a Chamber composed of:
MrG. Ress, President,
MrB. Zupančič,
MrJ. Hedigan,
MrsM. Tsatsa-Nikolovska,
MrsH.S. Greve,
MrK. Traja,
MrsA. Gyulumyan, judges,
and Mr M. Villiger, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 8 October 2002,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Angel Lickov, is a citizen of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Born in 1947 in Strumica, he lives in Stip.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant may be summarised as follows.
In 1981 the state-owned enterprise for electrical power distribution “Elektrostopanstvo” installed a power distribution pillar on a plot of land, which at that time was the property of the applicant's father. The latter did not object to it. The applicant gained ownership in 1988 over the land as a gift from his father. He was fully aware that such a burden came with the property (easement).
The applicant instituted proceedings in March 1996 against the enterprise, claiming restitutio in integrum as the aforementioned installation had been implanted without the consent of the property's owner and in breach of the expropriation law. The Basic Stip Court accepted his claims on 10 July 1996, but the judgment was quashed by the Stip Court of Appeal on 25 February 1997 on the ground that the enterprise had no legal personality.
The Stip Basic Court dismissed the applicant's claims on 27 November 1997. This judgment was upheld by the Stip Court of Appeal on 25 November 1998.
The applicant appealed on points of law to the Supreme Court, but his claims were dismissed on 10 January 2002, though on grounds different from those decided upon by the lower courts. The judgment was served on 11 April 2002.
In the meantime, the applicant had approached other officials in order to gain information about the outcome of the proceedings.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings, stating that they were unreasonably long as they lasted 6 years, especially pointing to the procedure before the Supreme Court that lasted more than three years.
2. The applicant also complains under Article 6 of the Convention that the courts decided wrongly in his case and erred in the interpretation of the domestic law.
3. The applicant further complains, under Article 13 of the Convention, that he had no effective remedy and was unable to prevent the unlawful taking of his possessions.
4. The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the installation of the power distribution pillar on the plot of land in fact deprives him of his possessions.
THE LAW
1. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings.
The Court cannot, on the basis of the file, determine the admissibility of this complaint. It is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of its Rules of Procedure, to give notice of it to the respondent Government.
2. The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention of incorrect decisions in his case. The Court recalls that it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or of law allegedly committed by a national court unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention (see Schenk v. Switzerland, judgment of 12 July 1988, Series A no. 140, p. 29, § 45). In the present case, there is no indication that the applicant could not duly put forward his point of view or that the proceedings were otherwise unfairly conducted.
This part of the application is, therefore, manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4.
3. The applicant complains under Article 13 of the Convention that, as a result of the lack of an effective remedy, he was unable to prevent the unlawful taking of his possessions. However, the Court notes that the applicant was able to bring his complaints before the domestic courts. This part of the application is, therefore, manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
4. The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that he was unlawfully deprived of his possessions. The Court, considers, however, that at the time of the installation of the power distribution pillar, the applicant did not own the property. His father, who was the owner, did not object. When obtaining the property as a gift, seven years after the installation, the applicant was well aware of the property's condition, but failed to protest until 1996.
It follows that the remainder of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant's complaint concerning the length of proceedings under Article 6 § 1;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Mark VilligerGeorg Ress
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy