FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 56273/14
Toni SEDLOVSKI
against North Macedonia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 5 March 2019 as a Committee composed of:
Aleš Pejchal, President,
Tim Eicke,
Gilberto Felici, judges,
and Renata Degener, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 4 August 2014,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 26 June 2017 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, Mr Toni Sedlovski, is a Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia, who was born in 1967 and lives in Prilep. He was represented before the Court by Mr I. Nikoloski, a lawyer practising in Prilep.
The Government of North Macedonia (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr K. Bogdanov, subsequently succeeded by their present Agent, Ms D. Djonova.
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the lack of access to the Supreme Court in respect of civil proceedings.
The application had been communicated to the Government.
THE LAW
After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 26 June 2017 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 a unilateral declaration – its acknowledgement that in the special circumstances of the present case, the applicant has been denied, in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the ‘right to a court’ in the determination of his civil rights and obligations.
Consequently, the Government is prepared to pay the applicant ... the total sum of 2,367 EUR. This amount would constitute adequate redress and sufficient compensation ... The 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.
...
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.”
By a letter of 11 August 2017, the applicant indicated that he was not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration on the grounds that the amount proposed by the Government did not represent adequate redress and sufficient compensation for the violation in question. He invited the Court to examine the case on the merits, stating that a judgment in his favour would remedy the violation of his right done by the domestic courts.
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 observes that the unilateral declaration contains a clear acknowledgment by the Government of a violation of the applicant’s rights protected under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. It also contains an undertaking to pay him a total of EUR 2,367 in compensation for pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage, costs and expenses.
Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which the Court finds to be reasonable given the circumstances of the case – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c)).
Moreover, 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 28 March 2019.
Renata DegenerAleš Pejchal
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy