THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 52498/13
Milivoje MILIĆEVIĆ
against Serbia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 21 February 2017 as a Committee composed of:
Luis López Guerra, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Branko Lubarda, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 31 July 2013,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 18 December 2015 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicant’s reply to that declaration,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Milivoje Milićević, is a Serbian national, who was born in 1945 and lives in Vršac.
The Serbian Government (“the Government”) were initially represented by their former Agent, Ms V. Rodić, being more recently substituted by their current Agent, Ms N. Plavšić.
On 18 November 2008 the Lebane Municipal Court ordered the Republic of Serbia to return the applicant certain land and to remove all the facilities built on that land.
On 12 August 2010, upon the applicant’s request to that effect, the Lebane Municipal Court ordered the enforcement of the said judgment and further ordered the debtor to pay the applicant the enforcement costs.
The enforcement proceedings were finally terminated by the Leskovac First Instance Court’s decision of 1 February 2012.
On 20 June 2013 the Constitutional Court found the violation of applicant’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time and awarded the applicant 300 euros (EUR) as just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage.
Relying on Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention, the applicant complained about the length of enforcement proceedings in question.
The application had been communicated to the Government on 1 September 2015.
THE LAW
After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 18 December 2015 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
The declaration provided as follows:
“I declare that the Government of the Republic of Serbia is ready to accept that there had been a violation of the applicant’s right under Articles 6 and Article 13 of the Convention and offer to pay to Mr Milivoje Milićević the amount of EUR 1,350 less any amounts which may have already been paid in that regard at the domestic level in order to cover any non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant in respect of the application registered under no. 52498/13 before the European Court of Human Rights.
This sum will be converted into national currency at the rate applicable on the date of payment and will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court to strike the case out of its list of cases.
This payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.
The Government regrets the occurrence of the actions which have led to the bringing of the present application.”
By a letter of 5 February 2016, the applicant indicated that he was not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration on the ground that the sum proposed in the Government’s declaration was unacceptably low.
The Court reiterates that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified, under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. Article 37 § 1 (c) enables the Court in particular to strike a case out of its list if:
“for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.
It also reiterates that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued.
To this end, the Court has examined the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; WAZA Sp. z o.o. v. Poland (dec.), no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.), no. 28953/03, 18 September 2007).
The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Serbia, its practice concerning complaints about the non‑enforcement of the judgments rendered in favour of the applicants and one’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see, for example, EVT Company v. Serbia, no. 3102/05, 21 June 2007 and Nemet v. Serbia, no. 22543/05, 8 December 2009).
Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent 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 the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
Further, the Court interprets the Government’s declaration as meaning that in the event of failure to settle within the three-month period indicated in this declaration, simple interest shall be payable on the amount in question at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank plus three percentage points.
Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application could be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention (Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
Done in English and notified in writing on 16 March 2017.
Fatoş AracıLuis López Guerra
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy