THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 9108/13
Milijan MILETIĆ
against Serbia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 24 June 2014 as a Committee composed of:
Ján Šikuta, President,
Dragoljub Popović,
Iulia Antoanella Motoc, judges,
and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 29 December 2012,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Milijan Miletić, was a Serbian national, who was born in 1951 and lived in Čačak. He was represented before the Court by Ms D. Obradović, a lawyer practising in Čačak. The applicant passed away in the course of proceedings before the Court.
The Serbian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms V. Rodić.
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the respondent State’s failure to enforce the final court decisions of the Municipal Court in Čačak of 7 March 2000, 28 November 2006 and 26 November 2006, rendered in his favour, according to which the company - AD “Cer” Čačak (hereinafter “the debtor”) was ordered to pay him certain sums. These court decisions remain unenforced to the present day. The debtor was at the relevant time a socially-owned company.
On 28 January 2014 the applicant’s representative informed the Court that the applicant had passed away in the course of proceedings before the Court. In addition, the representative informed the Court that the applicant’s widow, Ms Vera Miletić, had been declared as the applicant’s heir and that she wished to further pursue the application lodged by her husband.
The Government did not contest this request.
On 20 March 2014 and 10 April 2014 the Court received friendly settlement declarations signed by the parties under which the applicant’s widow agreed to waive any further claims against Serbia in respect of the facts giving rise to this application against an undertaking by the Government to pay her 2,000 euros to cover any non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, which would be converted into local currency at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and would be free of any taxes that may be applicable. This sum would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertook 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 parties, furthermore, agreed that within the said three-month period the Government would pay, from their own funds, the sums awarded in the domestic decisions under consideration in the present case, less any amounts which may have already been paid on the basis of the said decisions, plus the costs of the domestic enforcement proceedings. These payments will constitute the final resolution of the case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.
THE LAW
To begin with, the Court reiterates that in various cases in which an applicant has passed away in the course of the proceedings, the Court has taken into account the statements of the applicant’s heirs or of close relatives who have expressed the wish to pursue the proceedings before the Court (see, for example, Deweer v. Belgium, 27 February 1980, §§ 37-38, Series A no. 35; and Kovačić and Others v. Slovenia [GC], nos. 44574/98, 45133/98 and 48316/99, §§ 189-192, 3 October 2008). Regard being had to the fact that Ms Vera Miletić, as the applicant’s wife, is his legal heir under national law, the Court finds that she has a standing to proceed in the applicant’s stead.
Furthermore, 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 reasons to justify a continued examination of the application. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the application out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 39 of the Convention.
Marialena TsirliJán Šikuta
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy