THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 27870/02
by Adem LIMKOSKI and Others
against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 2 February 2006 as a Chamber composed of:
MrB.M. Zupančič, President,
MrJ. Hedigan,
MrsM. Tsatsa-Nikolovska,
MrV. Zagrebelsky,
MrE. Myjer,
MrDavid Thór Björgvinsson,
MrsI. Ziemele, judges,
and Mr V. Berger, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 17 June 2002,
Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants, Mr Adem Limkoski, Mr Alim Limkoski and Mr Mehdija Limkoski, are Macedonian nationals and live in Kičevo. They are represented before the Court by Mr O. Kadriu, a lawyer practising in Skopje, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
In 1988 the municipality of Kičevo expropriated a piece of land owned by the applicants’ father. By a final decision of 14 November 1990, delivered in proceedings for determination of compensation for expropriation (вонпарнична постапка за определување на надоместок за експроприрана недвижност), the Skopje District Court (Окружен Суд Скопје) ordered the municipality to compensate the applicants’ father for the expropriation of his land. However, that decision was never enforced. The applicants or their father, who passed away in 1992, did not institute enforcement proceedings for the execution of their/his compensation claims.
On an unspecified date in 1998, the applicants brought an action for damages against the State, claiming that their father had not been awarded a fair amount of compensation in 1990 and that they had suffered damage as a result of the municipality’s failure to pay the award.
On 4 November 2001 the Kičevo Basic Court (Основен Суд Кичево) dismissed the applicants’ claims.
On 12 March 2002 the Skopje Appellate Court (Апелационен Суд Скопје) upheld the judgment. Both courts found that according to the national law, any award of compensation related to expropriation could be challenged in separate proceedings, which in the applicants’ case had ended in 1990. They also held that the applicants could institute enforcement proceedings and receive the compensation granted in 1990 with interest.
It is not apparent whether the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law (ревизија) before the Supreme Court against the Appellate Court’s judgment.
On 10 June 2002 the Public Prosecutor refused their initiative to lodge a request for the protection of legality (барање за заштита на законитоста) before the Supreme Court.
COMPLAINTS
Invoking Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicants complained about the outcome and the length of proceedings, which they consider as a singe one.
The applicants also complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that they are still not compensated for the expropriation of their property and that they were not awarded a fair amount of compensation in 1990.
THE LAW
The Court observes that notice of the application was given to the respondent Government, which submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the applicants’ complaints on 21 June 2004. On 2 July 2004 the applicants were invited to submit their observations in reply before 30 July 2004. However, the Court notes that the applicants have failed to do so. Moreover, they failed to respond to a registered letter dated 24 September 2004, warning the applicants of the possibility that their case might be struck out of the Court’s list.
Having regard to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, the Court concludes that the applicants do not intend to pursue the application. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the examination of this application to be continued. Accordingly, Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it should be struck out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Vincent BergerBoštjan M. Zupančič
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy