FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 17180/13
INTERMEDICAL D.O.O.
against Bosnia and Herzegovina
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 11 October 2016 as a Committee composed of:
Khanlar Hajiyev, President,
Faris Vehabović,
Carlo Ranzoni, judges,
and Anne-Marie Dougin, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 6 February 2013,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 15 March 2016 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicant’s reply to that declaration,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Intermedical D.O.O., is privately held company, with the seat in Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina. It was represented before the Court by Mr N. Ademović, a lawyer practising in Sarajevo.
The Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms M. Mijić.
The application was communicated to the Government on 31 January 2015.
THE LAW
The applicant company complained about the length of a civil case concerning a debt. It relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
Following unsuccessful attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 15 March 2016 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:
“I, Monika Mijić, the Government Agent, hereby declare that the Government is willing to accept that a violation of the applicant’s rights under the Convention on account of the length of the proceedings before the domestic bodies occurred in the above referenced case and offers to pay to the applicant Intermedical d.o.o. EUR 1,080 (one thousand and eighty euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 500 (five hundred euros) to cover any and all costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.
These sums will be converted into national currency at the rate applicable on the date of payment and will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court to strike the case out of its list of cases. In the event of failure to pay these sums within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on them, 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.”
By a letter of 31 March 2016, the applicant indicated that it was not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration.
The Court reiterates 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 reiterates 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 has examined the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; WAZA Sp. 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 its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see, for example, 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).
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 § 1 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.
Done in English and notified in writing on 3 November 2016.
Anne-Marie DouginKhanlar Hajiyev
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy