FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Applications nos. 28174/05 and 53473/07
NPK ‘INTELEKT’ against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
and Slavko KRSTEVSKI against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 1 October 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 applications lodged on 10 March 2003 and 27 November 2007 respectively,
Having regard to the declarations submitted by the respondent Government on 16 September and 26 October 2011 respectively, requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant in the first case, NPK ‘Intelekt’, is a company registered in Plovdiv, Bulgaria.
The applicant in the second case, Mr Slavko Krstevski, is a Macedonian national, who was born in 1945 and lives in village of Sopotnica. He was represented before the Court by Mr Z. Andonovski, a lawyer practising in Skopje.
The Macedonian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their former Agent, Mrs R. Lazareska Gerovska, succeeded subsequently by their present Agent, Mr K. Bogdanov.
On 10 November 2010 the Bulgarian Government was informed of the first case and invited to exercise their right to intervene if they wished to do so. On 10 January 2011 the Bulgarian Government informed the Court that they did not wish to exercise their right to intervene in the first case.
The applicants complained under different Articles of the Convention in respect to their domestic proceedings, as set out in the appendix below.
The part of the applications concerning the length of the impugned proceedings under Article 6 of the Convention had been communicated to the Government.
THE LAW
Having regard to the similarity of the main issue under the Convention, the Court decides to join the applications and consider them in a single decision.
After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by letters of 16 September and 26 October 2011 the respondent Government informed the Court that they proposed to make unilateral declarations with a view to resolving the issue raised by this part of the applications. They further requested the Court to strike out the applications 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 the Convention. Consequently, the Government is prepared to pay the global sum of [as specified in the appendix for each separate application] euros to [the applicant name]. In its view, this amount would constitute adequate redress and sufficient compensation for the violation indicated in the applications 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] 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.”
The applicants did not comment on the Government’s unilateral declarations.
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 applications”.
It also recalls that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an applications 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 cases 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; see also 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 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 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; 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 applications (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 applications (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
The Court considers that the amounts proposed by the Government should be converted into the national currency of the respondent State 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).
The applicants also raised additional complaints with reference to various Articles of the Convention and its Protocols.
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 applications 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
Decides to join the applications;
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declarations and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike the part of the applications concerning the applicants’ complaint about the length of proceedings under Article 6 § 1 out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention;
Declares the remainder of the applications inadmissible.
André WampachElisabeth Steiner
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Appendix
Application no.
Lodged on
Applicant’s name
Subject matter of the domestic proceedings
Articles invoked
Sum awarded in euros
28174/05
10/03/2003
NPK ‘INTELEKT’
Payment of debt
Article 6
Article 13
Article 14
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
1,232
53473/07
27/11/2007
Slavko KRSTEVSKI
Employment dispute (dismissal)
Article 6
Article 13
Article 14
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
595
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy