THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 34685/08
SIKS DOO
against Serbia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 10 June 2014 as a Committee composed of:
Ján Šikuta, President,
Dragoljub Popović,
Iulia Antoanella Motoc, judges,
and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 15 July 2008,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 16 April 2013 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, Siks d.o.o., is a limited liability company with its seat in Smederevo. It was represented before the Court by Ms D. Stoiljković, a lawyer practising in Smederevo.
The Serbian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr S. Carić.
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the non-enforcement of a final decision of the Commercial Court (Trgovinski sud) in Požarevac of 20 August 2002.
The application had been communicated to the Government.
THE LAW
After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 16 April 2013 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 of the Republic of Serbia acknowledge that there had been a violation of the applicant’s right under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and offer to pay to the applicant the amount of EUR 3690 [three thousand six hundred ninety euros] in respect of the application registered under no. 34685/08 before the European Court of Human Rights.
This sum, which covers any non-pecuniary damage as well as costs, shall be paid in dinar counter-value, free of any taxes that may be applicable and to an account named by the applicant. This sum shall be payable within three months from the date of delivery of the decision by the Court. This payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.
The Government regret the occurrence of the actions which have led to the bringing of the present application.”
By a letter of 12 August 2013, the applicant indicated that it was not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration.
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 application”.
It also recalls 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 will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (Tahsin Acar v. Turkey, [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI); 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 Serbia, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one’s rights to enforcement of final court decisions rendered in his or her favour (see, for example, EVT Company v. Serbia, no. 3102/05, 21 June 2007; ZIT Company v. Serbia, no. 37343/05, 27 November 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).
The Court considers that this amount should be 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.
It is to be noted that this decision is without prejudice to the merits of the applicant’s domestic claim or, indeed, its ability to obtain redress for any additional procedural delay which may occur after the date of the present decision.
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).
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention concerning the applicant’s complaint about the non-enforcement of a decision rendered in its favour 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.
Marialena TsirliJán Šikuta
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy