FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 16632/15
Arian REDJEPI
against North Macedonia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 3 September 2019 as a Committee composed of:
Tim Eicke, President,
Jovan Ilievski,
Raffaele Sabato, judges,
and Renata Degener, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 28 March 2015,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 31 October 2018 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
1. The applicant, Mr Arian Redjepi, is a Macedonian citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia, who was born in 1982 and lives in Skopje. He was represented before the Court by Ms T. Doneska, a lawyer practising in Skopje.
2. The Government of North Macedonia (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms D. Djonova.
3. The applicant complained under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention about a violation of his right to adversarial proceedings and oral hearing.
4. The application had been communicated to the Government.
THE LAW
5. After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 31 October 2018 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, it did not fulfil the requirements of the applicant’s rights protected by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. Consequently, the Government is prepared to pay to the applicant Arian Redjepi, a sum of 900 EUR (nine hundred euros). In its view, this amount would constitute adequate redress and sufficient compensation for the violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention 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 Court decision...
In the light of the above and in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention the Government, having in mind the terms of this declaration, 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 cases by virtue of that provision. Therefore, the Government invites the Court to strike the application out of its list of cases.”
6. By a letter of 11 December 2018, the applicant indicated that he was not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration. He stated that the proposed amount was not adequate or sufficient compensation for the alleged violation. Furthermore, he considered that the nature of the alleged violation justified the need for the Court to continue the examination of his case.
7. 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”.
8. 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.
9. 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).
10. The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against North Macedonia, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of Article 5 § 4 (see, for example, Stollenwerk v. Germany, no. 8844/12, 7 September 2017; Miladinov and Others v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, nos. 46398/09 and 2 others, 24 April 2014; and Mitreski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 11621/09, 25 March 2010).
11. 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)).
12. 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).
13. The Court considers that this 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 amount in question at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank plus three percentage points.
14. 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 5 § 4 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 26 September 2019.
Renata DegenerTim Eicke
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy