FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 28635/05
by Branislav STEFANOSKI and Others
against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 31 January 2011 as a Committee composed of:
Zdravka Kalaydjieva, President,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,
Julia Laffranque, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 12 July 2005,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 26 May 2010 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicants’ reply to that declaration,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The application was lodged by Mr Branislav Stefanoski (“the first applicant”), Mr Miroslav Stefanoski (“the second applicant”), Ms Nadezda Stefanoska (“the third applicant”), Ms Svetlana Hristova Ristoska (“the fourth applicant”), Mr Gorge Hristov (“the fifth applicant”) and Mrs Kocana Stefanoska (“the sixth applicant”) who were born in 1951, 1949, 1927, 1965, 1956 and 1938. They live in Tetovo except for the sixth applicant who lives in Skopje. The third and second applicants died on 13 October 2008 and 19 February 2009, respectively. There is no evidence that any heir or close relative has expressed the wish to pursue the application.
They were represented before the Court by Mr S. Hadzi-Lega, a lawyer practising in Skopje. The Macedonian Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, R. Lazareska Gerovska.
The case mainly concerns the length of civil proceedings in which the applicants claimed annulment of a contract. The proceedings started on 5 July 1994 and ended by a final decision of the Skopje Court of Appeal of 24 March 2005.
COMPLAINTS
As to the proceedings above, the applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention that their case had not been heard within a reasonable time. Relying on the same provision they further alleged that domestic judges had been biased and corrupted and about the outcome of the proceedings. Moreover, they invoked Article 1 of Protocol No.1.
Finally, the applicants raised complaints concerning other related proceedings.
THE LAW
1. The applicants complained about the length of the civil proceedings under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. This provision provides as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
By letter dated 25 October 2010 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, 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 Mr Branislav Stefanoski the global sum of 2,193 euros (two thousand, one hundred and ninety three euros); to pay jointly to the applicants Ms Svetlana Hristova Ristoska and Mr Djordje Hristov the global sum of 2,193 euros (two thousand, one hundred and ninety three euros) and to pay ex gratia to the applicant Ms Kocana Stefanoska the sum of 2,193 euros (two thousand, one hundred and ninety three 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 personal accounts of the applicants 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 24 November 2010 the applicants stated that they do not accept the sum mentioned in the Government’s declaration.
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 this part 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.
2. In a letter of 18 March 2010, the applicants informed the Court that the third applicant died on 13 October 2008 and the second applicant died on 19 February 2009. It further notes that no request has been submitted by those applicants’ next-of-kin to pursue the case. In these circumstances, the Court concludes that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application in so far as it was brought by the second and third applicants within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. Furthermore, the Court finds no reasons of a general nature, as defined in Article 37 § 1 in fine, which would require the examination of this part of the application by virtue of that Article. It therefore decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in so far as it was brought by the second and third applicants (see Petkoski and Others v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 27736/03, § 28, 8 January 2009; Erol Direkçi and Ergül Direkçi v. Turkey (dec.), no. 47826/99, 31 March 2005).
3. As to the proceedings in which the applicants claimed annulment of a contract, they further complained under Article 6 of the Convention that domestic judges had been biased and corrupted and about the outcome of the proceedings. Moreover, they invoked Article 1 of Protocol No.1. The applicants also raised complaints concerning other related proceedings.
The Court has examined the remainder of the complaints as submitted by the applicants. However, having regard to all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that the applicants have failed to substantiate their complaints. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
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 and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike the part of the application referring to the lengthy proceedings to which the first, fourth, fifth and sixth applicants were party out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
Decides to strike the application concerning the second and third applicants out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Stephen PhillipsZdravka Kalaydjieva
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy