THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Applications nos. 63163/10 and 63313/10
Spomenka STEFANOVIĆ against Serbia
and Aleksandar STOJANOVIĆ against Serbia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 30 June 2015 as a Committee composed of:
Ján Šikuta, President,
Iulia Antoanella Motoc,
Branko Lubarda, judges,
and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications lodged on 29 September 2010,
Having regard to the declarations submitted by the respondent Government on 18 July 2014 and 12 March 2015 respectively requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases and the applicants’ reply to these declarations,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicants, Ms Spomenka Stefanović and Mr Aleksandar Stojanović, are Serbian nationals, born in 1958 and 1982 respectively and living in Leskovac. They were represented before the Court by Mr M. Marjanović and Ms M. Dedović-Marjanović, lawyers practising in Leskovac.
The Serbian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms V. Rodić.
Both applicants are former employees of “LETEKS” u stečaju (the debtor), which was, at the relevant time, a socially-owned company. Both applicants obtained final court decisions (Municipal Court in Leskovac of 18 April 2008 and 8 January 2009) ordering the debtor to pay them certain sums.
Relying on Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention the applicants complained about the failure by the national authorities to enforce final court decisions rendered in their favour.
The applications had been communicated to the Government.
THE LAW
The Court considers that, in accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the applications should be joined, given their similar factual and legal background.
After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by letters of 18 July 2014 and 12 March 2015, the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make unilateral declarations with a view to resolving the issue raised by the applications. They further requested the Court to strike out the applications in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
The declaration in respect to each application provided as follows:
“... the Government of the Republic of Serbia is ready to acknowledge that there had been a violation of the applicant’s right under Article 6 (1) of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and offer to pay to the applicant, [the applicant’s name], the amount of EUR 1,800 ...
This sum, which is to cover any non-pecuniary damage as well as the costs and expenses, will be converted into RSD at the rate applicable on the date of payment, free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court to strike the case out of its list of cases.
..further ... the Government offer to pay to the applicant, from their own funds, the sums awarded in the domestic decision ... less any amounts which may have already been paid on the basis of the said decision, plus the costs of the domestic enforcement proceedings.
The amounts at the issue will be paid directly to the account of the applicant. These payments will constitute the final resolution of the case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.
The Government regret the occurrence of the actions which have led to the bringing of the present application. ”
By letters of 8 October 2014 and 22 April 2015, the applicants indicated that they were not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declarations as they considered the proposed amount of non-pecuniary damage unsatisfactory.
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 applications”.
It also recalls that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an applications under Article 37 § 1(c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicants wish the examination of the cases to be continued.
To this end, the Court will examine carefully the Government’s declarations 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 non‑enforcement of final domestic decision rendered against socially/State–owned companies (see, for example, R. Kačapor and Others v. Serbia, nos. 2269/06, 3041/06, 3042/06, 3043/06, 3045/06 and 3046/06, 15 January 2008; Crnišanin and Others v. Serbia, nos. 35835/05, 43548/05, 43569/05 and 36986/06, 13 January 2009; Rašković and Milunović v. Serbia, nos. 1789/07 and 28058/07, 31 May 2011; Milunović and Čekrlić v. Serbia (dec.), nos. 3716/09 and 38051/09, 17 May 2011; and Stošić v. Serbia, no. 64931/1, 1 October 2013).
Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declarations, as well as the amount of compensation proposed, the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the applications (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 applications (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
Further, the Court interprets the Government’s declarations as meaning that in the event of failure to settle within the three-month period indicated in those declarations, 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.
Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declarations, the applications 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 cases out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to join the applications;
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declarations under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
Done in English and notified in writing on 23 July 2015.
Marialena TsirliJán Šikuta
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy