SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 32805/10
Ljubiša STEPIĆ
against Serbia
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 10 December 2013 as a Committee composed of:
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque, President,
Dragoljub Popović,
Helen Keller, judges,
and Stanley Naismith, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 27 May 2010,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Ljubiša Stepić, was a Serbian national, who was born in 1953 and lived in Šabac. On 15 June 2012 the applicant’s wife informed the Court that the applicant had died in the course of the proceedings before the Court.
The Serbian Government (“the Government”) were initially represented by their former Agent, Mr S. Carić and subsequently by their acting Agent, Ms V. Rodić.
Relying on Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicant complained about the respondent State’s failure to fully enforce final court decisions rendered in his favour against a socially/State-owned company by the Šabac Municipal Court on 4 May 2006 and 12 May 2006 respectively.
On 26 August 2013 the applicant’s son, Mr Aleksandar Stepić, informed the Court that in the framework of inheritance proceedings he had been declared as the applicant’s sole heir. He also expresed his wish to further pursue the application lodged by his father.
The Government have not contested this request.
On 2 and 3 October 2013 the Court received friendly settlement declarations signed by the parties under which the applicant’s heir agreed to waive any further claims against Serbia in respect of the facts giving rise to this application against an undertaking by the Government to pay him 2,000 EUR (two thousand euros) to cover any non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, which would be converted into local currency at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and would be free of any taxes that may be applicable. This sum would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court. In the event of failure to pay the sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on it, from expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
The parties, furthermore, agreed that within the said three-month period the Government would pay, from their own funds, the sums awarded in the domestic decisions under consideration in the present case, less any amounts which may have already been paid on the basis of the said decisions, plus the costs of the domestic enforcement proceedings. These payments will constitute the final resolution of the case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.
THE LAW
The Court must first examine whether Mr Aleksandar Stepić has standing to pursue the application originally lodged by the applicant, who died in the course of the proceedings before the Court.
In various cases in which an applicant has died in the course of the proceedings the Court has taken into account the statements of the applicant’s heirs or of close members of his family who have expressed the wish to pursue the proceedings before the Court (see, for example, Deweer v. Belgium, 27 February 1980, §§ 37-38, Series A no. 35; and Kovačić and Others v. Slovenia [GC], nos. 44574/98, 45133/98 and 48316/99, §§ 189‑192, 3 October 2008).
Regard being had to the fact that Mr Aleksandar Stepić, as the applicant’s son, is his lawful heir under national law, the Court finds that he has standing to proceed in the applicant’s stead.
The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no reasons to justify a continued examination of the application. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 39 of the Convention.
Stanley NaismithPaulo Pinto de Albuquerque
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy