FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 10278/06
by Atanas MARUSKOV and Others
against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 2 December 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Peer Lorenzen, President,
Rait Maruste,
Karel Jungwiert,
Renate Jaeger,
Mark Villiger,
Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, judges,
and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 2 March 2006,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants are four Macedonian nationals. The first applicant, Mr Atanas Maruskov, was born in 1954 and lives in Skopje. The second applicant, Mr Trajče Dimoski, was born in 1950 and lives in Skopje. The third applicant, Ms Zorica Stefanoska was born in 1970 and lives in the village of Trubarevo. The fourth applicant, Mr Sande Mitevski was born in 1954 and lives in Skopje. They were represented before the Court by Mr D. Todorovski, a lawyer practising in Skopje. The Macedonian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs R. Lazareska Gerovska.
The application concerns a labour dispute in which the applicants claimed annulment of their dismissals. The proceedings in question started on 3 April 1997 and ended on 24 January 2006, when the Supreme Court’s decision of 9 November 2005 was served on the applicants.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention that their case had not been heard within a reasonable time and that judges involved had lacked the requisite impartiality.
The applicants complained also under Article 11 of the Convention that the domestic courts had wrongly decided their claim since they had been absent from work due to their participation at a properly organised strike.
THE LAW
On 10 July 2008 the Court received the following declaration from the respondent Government:
“I, Radica Lazareska Gerovska, Agent of the Government, declare that the Government of the Republic of Macedonia offer to pay ex gratia 3,300 euros to each of the four applicants listed in the appendix enclosed to this declaration with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.
This sum, which is to cover any non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be converted into Macedonian Denars at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and 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 pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it, from 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.”
On 28 May 2008 the Court received a declaration, duly signed by the applicant’s representative, which read, inter alia, as follows:
“I, Dimitar Todorovski, the representative, note that the Government of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia are prepared to pay to each of the four applicants listed in the appendix enclosed to this declaration, ex gratia the sum of 3,300 euros with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights ... We accept the proposal and waive any further claims against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in respect of the facts giving rise to this application. We declare that this constitutes a final resolution of the case.”
The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no public policy reasons to justify a continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). In view of the above, 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.
Claudia WesterdiekPeer Lorenzen
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy