FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 60069/09
Ljupčo NAUMOVSKI and others
against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 12 November 2013 as a Committee composed of:
Elisabeth Steiner, President,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos, judges,
and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 6 November 2009,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 13 September 2012 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicants’ reply to that declaration,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicants are Macedonian nationals and live in Capari, Bitola. A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. They were represented by Mr S. Budževski, lawyer practicing in Bitola.
The Macedonian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr K. Bogdanov.
The applicants complained under Article 6 about the civil proceedings for compensation of damages.
The complaint regarding the alleged excessive length of proceedings under Article 6 was communicated to the Government.
THE LAW
After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 13 September 2012, the respondent Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue in respect of the length of the proceedings. They further requested the Court to strike the application out from its list of cases 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 applicants’ rights protected by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. Consequently, the Government is prepared to pay the global sum of 1,665 euros to each of the following sixteen applicants [see the applicants’ names specified in the appendix]. 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 applicants 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[s] 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 1 November 2012, the applicants indicated that they were not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration and requested the Court to continue with the examination of the case.
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 applicants wish the examination of the case to be continued.
To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles established in 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).
The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of Article 6 § 1 about one’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see, for example, Petkovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 27314/04, 13 November 2008; Ajvazi v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 30956/05, 13 November 2008; 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, 11 October 2005; and Wende and Kukówka v. Poland, no. 56026/00, 10 May 2007).
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 these amounts 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 cases out of the list in the part concerning the complaints of the length of proceedings.
Relying on Article 6 the applicants also raised other complaints.
Having regard to all the evidence in its possession, and in so far as it has jurisdiction to examine the allegations, the Court has not found any appearance of a breach of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention or its Protocols.
It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
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 part of the applications regarding the length complaint out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
André WampachElisabeth Steiner
Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
No.
Applicant’s name
Date of birth
Ljupčo NAUMOVSKI
21/11/1959
Borče NAUMOVSKI
17/04/1959
Anica NAUMOVSKA
19/01/1967
Cane MIŠEVSKI
31/05/1954
Slavica MIŠEVSKA
30/07/1960
Dragi KOLIKONJOVSKI
05/08/1960
Jordan POPOVSKI
01/06/1964
Ljupčo BEČVAROVSKI
31/01/1968
Lena VRČKOVSKA
18/07/1954
Suzana GEČEVSKA
19/02/1963
Ljupčo KEREMELEVSKI
27/12/1959
Suzana DURTANOVSKA
27/12/1959
Vesna KOČANOVSKA
24/08/1968
Kire KAPINKOVSKI
01/01/1958
Slavica KAPINKOVSKA
15/03/1964
Ilinka STERJOVSKA
22/07/1950
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy