THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 31060/08
Jovan STOJANOVIĆ and KOKOT 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 9 June 2008,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 26 February 2014 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:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The first applicant, Mr Jovan Stojanović, is a Serbian national, who was born in 1947 and lives in Niš. The second applicant, Kokot d.o.o., is a limited liability company with its seat in Niš. The first applicant represented himself before the Court, and the second applicant was represented by its manager, the first applicant.
The Serbian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their successive Agents, Mr S. Carić and Ms V. Rodić.
The applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in relation to the second applicant’s civil proceedings.
The part of the application concerning the length of the proceedings and a lack of an effective domestic remedy in that regard had been communicated to the Government under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention.
THE LAW
After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 26 February 2014 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 provided as follows:
“[...] the Government of the Republic of Serbia is ready to acknowledge that there had been a violation of the applicants’ rights under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention and offer to pay to the applicants, Stojanović and Kokot d.o.o. the amount of EUR 1080 [one thousand eighty euros] jointly in respect of the application registered under no. 31060/08 before the European Court of Human Rights.
This sum, which is to cover any non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be converted into [Serbian dinars] 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. 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 March 2014, the applicants indicated that they were 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 applicants wish 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 right to a hearing within a reasonable time and to an effective domestic remedy in that regard (see, for example, Ilić v. Serbia, no. 30132/04, 9 October 2007; and Nemet v. Serbia, no. 22543/05, 8 December 2009).
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.
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).
In so far as the applicants’ remaining complaints are concerned, having regard to all the evidence in its possession, and in so far as it has jurisdiction to examine the allegations, the Court has not found any appearance of a breach of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention or its Protocols.
It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
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 concerning the complaint about the length of the second applicant’s civil proceedings and a lack of an effective domestic remedy in that regard and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike the part of the application concerning the length of the civil proceedings and a lack of an effective domestic remedy in that regard out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Marialena TsirliJán Šikuta
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy