FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 35832/10
Vaso MOMIROVSKI
against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 4 November 2014 as a Committee composed of:
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque, President,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,
Ksenija Turković, judges,
and Søren Prebensen, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 21 June 2010,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 20 June 2014 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicant’s heir reply to that declaration,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Vaso Momirovski, was a Macedonian national, who was born in 1936 and lived in Samokov, Makedonski Brod. With a letter of 16 April 2014 the applicant’s wife, Ms S. Momiroska, informed the Court that the applicant had died on 27 March 2014 and that she wanted to pursue the application on behalf of her late husband.
The Macedonian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr K. Bogdanov.
The applicant complained under Article 6 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the civil proceeding for recognition of a tenancy that he initiated against the State.
The complaint concerning the length of the proceedings under Article 6 had been communicated to the Government and the remainder of the application declared inadmissible.
THE LAW
After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 20 June 2014 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:
“...the Government would hereby like to express – by a way of unilateral declaration – its acknowledgement that in the special circumstances of the present case, [the length of the domestic proceedings] did not fulfil the requirements of the applicant’s rights protected by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. Consequently, the Government is prepared to pay the global sum of 1,440 euros to the applicant’s heir, Ms Spasena Momiroska. In its view, this amount would constitute adequate redress and sufficient compensation for the violation of Article 6 § 1 that the domestic proceedings lasted unreasonably long, thus a reasonable sum as to quantum in the present case in the light of the Court’s case law. This sum is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, as well as the costs and expenses, and will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. This sum will be payable to the personal account of the applicant[‘s heir] within three months from the date of the notification of the Court decision pursuant to Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention ... In the light of the above and in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention, the Government would like to suggest that the circumstances of the present case allow the Court to reach the conclusion that for ‘any other reason’ it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application. Moreover, there are no reasons of a general character, as defined in Article 37 § 1 in fine, which would require the further examination of the case by virtue of that provision. Therefore, the Government invites the Court to strike the application out of its list of cases.”
By a letter of 28 July 2014, the applicant’s heir indicated that she was not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration.
The Court recalls 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 recalls 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 will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (Tahsin Acar v. Turkey, [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI); WAZA Spółka 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 the respondent State, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of Article 6 § 1 about one’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII; Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 69-98, ECHR 2006‑V; Majewski v. Poland, no. 52690/99, §§ 38-41, 11 October 2005; Wende and Kukówka v. Poland, no. 56026/00, §§ 63-65, 10 May 2007; Petkovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (dec.) no. 27314/04, 13 November 2008; Ajvazi v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (dec.) no. 30956/05, 13 November 2008).
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).
The Court considers that the amount should be converted into the national currency at the rate applicable at the date of payment and paid within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision issued in accordance with Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to settle within this period, simple interest shall be payable on the amounts 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 Article 6 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.
Søren PrebensenPaulo Pinto de Albuquerque
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy