FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 31833/05
by Naume PRENTOSKI
against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on
18 May 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Peer Lorenzen, President,
Renate Jaeger,
Karel Jungwiert,
Rait Maruste,
Mark Villiger,
Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, judges
and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 23 August 2005,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 1 March 2010 requesting the Court to strike the
non-enforcement complaint out of the list of cases,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Naume Prentoski, is a Macedonian national who was born in 1961 and lives in Struga. He is represented before the Court by Mr Mirce Prentoski, who lives in Struga. The Macedonian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs R. Lazareska Gerovska. The case concerns lengthy non-enforcement of a final judgment given in the applicant's favour. The proceedings instituted on
4 November 1996 are still pending.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment in his favour.
THE LAW
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the lengthy non-enforcement of a judgment. This provision provides as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...”
By letter dated 1 March 2010, the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by this part of the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
The declaration provided, inter alia, 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 requirement of ”reasonable time” referred to in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. Consequently, the Government is prepared to pay to the applicant the global sum of 1,820 euros (one thousand eight hundred and twenty euros). In its view, this amount would constitute adequate redress and sufficient compensation for the impugned length of the said proceedings, and 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 within three months from the date of the notification of the 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”
In a letter received by the Court on 13 April 2010 the applicant stated that the sum mentioned in the Government's declaration was unacceptably low.
Having regard to the Court's practice in this field (see Petkovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 27314/04, 13 November 2008 and Ajvazi v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 30956/05, 13 November 2008) and to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government's declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed, which is compatible 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 this part of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine). Accordingly, it should be struck out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government's declaration in respect of the length-of-proceedings complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in so far as it relates to the above complaint in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
Claudia WesterdiekPeer Lorenzen
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy