SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 9071/06
by Aleksandar STOJANOVIĆ and Others
against Serbia
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 22 April 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Françoise Tulkens, President,
Antonella Mularoni,
Ireneu Cabral Barreto,
Vladimiro Zagrebelsky,
Dragoljub Popović,
András Sajó,
Nona Tsotsoria, judges,
and Sally Dollé, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 20 February 2006,
Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 22 November 2007 requesting the Court to strike the application out of its list of cases and the applicants’ reply thereto,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants, Mr Aleksandar Stojanović, Ms Mileva Stojanović and Ms Stanislava Mitić, are all Serbian nationals who were born in 1923, 1933 and 1953, respectively, and live in Leskovac. They were represented before the Court by Mr M. Živković, a lawyer practising in the same town.
The Serbian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr S. Carić.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 22 January 1985 the Municipality of Leskovac (Opština Leskovac) expropriated the buildings owned by the applicants or their legal predecessors with a view to building a new street.
On 14 March 1995 the Municipality quashed this decision and informed the applicants that they could obtain pecuniary redress by means of an “ordinary” civil suit. In particular, it was noted that no construction had commenced within the first three years following the expropriation.
On 14 December 1995 the applicants filed a request for compensation in kind with the Municipal Court (Opštinski sud) in Leskovac. Their request was subsequently transformed into a claim for pecuniary damages brought against the municipal planning authorities (Javno preduzeće -Direkcija za urbanizam i izgradnju - Leskovac).
Following a remittal of the case prior to 3 March 2004, on 26 May 2006, the Municipal Court ruled in favour of the applicants. In so doing, it awarded the damages sought and found that the buildings in question had been demolished, which is why they could not be physically returned to the applicants.
On 25 October 2006 the same court issued a supplementary judgment (dopunska presuda), awarding additional compensation.
In the meantime, on 14 August 2006, the respondent filed an appeal against the Municipal Court’s judgment of 26 May 2006. According to the information contained in the case file, the applicant’s claims appear to be still pending before the District Court (Okružni sud) in Leskovac.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the civil suit for damages. They further complained, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, about the violation of their property rights.
THE LAW
A. Complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
By letter dated 22 November 2007 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by this part of the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
The declaration, signed by the Government’s Agent, provided as follows:
“I declare that the Government of Serbia is ready to accept that there had been a violation of the applicants’ rights under Article 6 paragraph 1 of the Convention and offer to pay the applicants [jointly] ex gratia the amount of EUR 3,200 in respect of the application registered under no. 9071/06 before the European Court of Human Rights.
This sum, which covers any pecuniary and 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 ... [specified] ... by the applicants. The sum shall be payable within three months from the date of delivery of the judgment 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.
The Government consider that the supervision by the Committee of Minsters of the execution of Court judgments concerning [the] Republic of Serbia in this and similar cases is an appropriate mechanism for insuring that improvements will be made in this context. To this end, necessary cooperation in this process will continue to take place.”
In a letter received by the Court on 20 December 2007 the applicants expressed the view that a strike-out of their case would not be justified.
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. In particular, Article 37 § 1 (c) enables the Court to strike a case out of its list if it finds that “it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”, and it has done so in the past on the basis of certain unilateral declarations by respondent Governments even if the applicants had maintained their cases.
To this end, the Court will carefully examine the declaration made by the Government in the present case in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey, [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI).
The Court notes that it has specified in a number of cases the nature and extent of the obligations which arise for a State Party under Article 6 of the Convention concerning the right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see, among many others, Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, ECHR 2006; Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, ECHR 2000‑XI; Ilić v. Serbia, no. 30132/04, 9 October 2007). Where the Court has found a breach of this Article it has awarded just satisfaction, the amount of which has depended on the particular features of the case.
Having regard to the nature of the concessions contained in the Government’s unilateral declaration in the present case, as well as the amount of compensation proposed (which can be considered reasonable in comparison with the Court’s awards in similar cases, when account is taken of the fact that only four years of the impugned proceedings fall within the Court’s competence ratione temporis, Serbia having ratified the Convention on 3 March 2004), the Court finds that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of this part of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention; see, for the relevant principles, Tahsin Acar, cited above; Haran v. Turkey, no. 25754/94, judgment of 26 March 2002).
The Court is also 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.
Since the impugned proceedings appear to be still pending, it is to be noted that the Court’s strike-out decision is without prejudice to the merits of the applicants’ domestic claim or, indeed, their ability to obtain redress for any additional procedural delay which may occur after the date of the present decision.
Finally, the Court recalls that, in accordance with Article 46 § 2 of the Convention, the Committee of Ministers is competent to supervise the execution of its final judgments only. Should the respondent State, however, fail to comply with the terms of its unilateral declaration given in the present case, the application could be restored to the Court’s list of cases pursuant to Article 37 § 2 of the Convention (see Aleksentseva and 28 Others v. Russia (dec.), no. 75025/01, ECHR, 23 March 2006).
B. Complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
Given that physical restitution of the property in question is impossible and that the related civil compensation suit is apparently still pending, the Court finds that the applicants’ complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 are premature and, as such, inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
C. Article 29 § 3 of the Convention
In view of the above conclusions, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration in respect of the 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 application out of its list of cases in so far as it relates to the above complaint in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Sally DolléFrançoise Tulkens Registrar President
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy