THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 63359/10
Srđan STOJANOVIĆ
against Serbia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 15 March 2016 as a Committee composed of:
George Nicolaou, President,
Branko Lubarda,
Pere Pastor Vilanova, judges,
and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 29 September 2010,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 18 July 2014 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicant’s reply to that declaration,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Srđan Stojanović, is a Serbian national, who was born in 1966 and lives in Leskovac. He was represented before the Court by Mr M. Marjanović, a lawyer practising in Leskovac.
The Serbian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent Ms V. Rodić.
Relying on Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicant complained about the respondent State’s failure to enforce a final court decision rendered in his favour against a socially-owned company.
The application had been communicated to the Government on 18 March 2014.
THE LAW
After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 18 July 2014 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 as follows:
“I declare that the Government of the Republic of Serbia is ready to acknowledge that there had been a violation of the applicant’s right under Articles 6 (1) and Article 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and offer to pay to the applicant, Srđan Stojanović the amount of EUR 1,800 in respect of the application registered under no. 63359/10 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 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.
I further declare that within the same three-month period the Government offer to pay to the applicant, from their own funds, the sums awarded in the domestic decision (P1 1414/06, P1 670/07, P1 2813/07, P1 2814/07 and P1 3305/07 of 18 April 2008) under consideration in this case, 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 issue will be paid directly to the account of the applicant. 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 31 March 2015, the applicant indicated that he was not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration on the ground that the sum proposed in the Government’s declaration was unacceptably low.
The Court reiterates 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 reiterates 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 applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued.
To this end, the Court has examined the declaration carefully 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, 18 September 2007).
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–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 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).
Further, the Court interprets the Government’s declaration as meaning that in the event of failure to settle within the three-month period indicated in this declaration, 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 view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration under Articles 6 and 13 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 application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
Done in English and notified in writing on 7 April 2016.
Marialena TsirliGeorge Nicolaou
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy