SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Applications nos. 21482/07, 21484/07, 21589/07 and 21601/07
by Života MILOSAVLJEVIĆ
against Serbia
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 8 March 2011 as a Committee composed of:
Ireneu Cabral Barreto, President,
Dragoljub Popović,
András Sajó, judges,
and Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications lodged on 3 April 2007,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
The applications were lodged by Mr Života Milosavljević, a Montenegrin national who was born in 1954 and lives in Bar, Montenegro. He was represented before the Court by Ms I. Milosavljević, his wife. The Serbian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr S. Carić. The Montenegrin Government were invited to intervene in the case, but have chosen not to exercise this right.
The applicant complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention about the length of his separate sets of civil proceedings, as well as of the absence of an effective domestic remedy in this regard.
He, furthermore, complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, about the violation of his property rights, as well as about being discriminated against based on his Montenegrin citizenship.
On 22 October 2010 and 10 November 2010 the Court received friendly settlement declarations signed by the parties under which the applicant agreed to waive any further claims against Serbia in respect of the facts giving rise to these applications against an undertaking by the Government to pay him a single sum of 4,000 euros to cover any non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, which would be converted into national currency at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and will be 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 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 payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.
THE LAW
The Court considers that, in accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the applications should be joined, given their similar factual and legal background.
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 (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention).
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to join the applications;
Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases.
Françoise Elens-PassosIreneu Cabral Barreto
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy