FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 20135/11
Vančo TAKOVSKI
against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 27 May 2014 as a Committee composed of:
Khanlar Hajiyev, President,
Julia Laffranque,
Erik Møse, judges,
and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 22 March 2011,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 7 October 2013 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Vančo Takovski, was a Macedonian national, who was born in 1956 and lived in Skopje. By a letter received by the Court on 26 September 2013, the Court was informed that the applicant had died and that his heirs, Ms Vesna Takovska, Ms Elena Takovska and Mr Ognen Takovski, also Macedonian nationals, living in Skopje, expressed their wish to continue the application on his behalf. The applicant and his heirs were represented before the Court by Mr T. Torov, a lawyer practising in Štip.
The Macedonian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr K. Bogdanov.
The applicant complained under Article 6 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention about compensation proceedings. The length complaint under Article 6 was communicated to the respondent Government.
THE LAW
After the parties had failed to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 7 October 2013 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue of the length of the proceedings 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:
“... the Government would hereby like to express – by a way of unilateral declaration – its acknowledgement that in the special circumstances of the present case, the length of the domestic proceedings did not fulfill the requirements of the applicant’s rights protected by the Convention. Consequently, the Government is prepared to pay the global sum of 1,530 EUR to Mr Vančo Takovski.[1] In its view, this amount would constitute adequate redress and sufficient compensation for the violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the domestic proceedings lasted unreasonably long, and thus a reasonable sum as to quantum in the present case in the light of the Court’s case law. This sum is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, as well as the costs and expenses and will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. This sum will be payable to the personal account of the applicant within three months from the date of the notification of the Court decision pursuant to Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention ... In the light of the above and in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention, the Government would like to suggest that the circumstances of the present case allow the Court to reach the conclusion that for “any other reason” it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application. Moreover, there are no reasons of a general character, as defined in Article 37 § 1 in fine, which would require the further examination of the case by virtue of that provision. Therefore, the Government invites the Court to strike the application out of its list of cases.”
The applicant’s heirs did not comment on the Government’s 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 applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued.
To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles established in 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, for instance; and Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.) no. 28953/03).
The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against the respondent State, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of Article 6 § 1 about one’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see, for instance, Petkovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 27314/04, 13 November 2008; and Ajvazi v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 30956/05, 13 November 2008.
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 this part 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 this part of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
The Court considers that this amount should be converted into the national currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of payment and 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 view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list in the part concerning the complaint about the length of proceedings.
Relying on Article 6 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 the applicant also raised other complaints.
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 Article 6 of the Convention concerning the length of the proceedings and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike a part of the application in respect of the length of the proceedings under Article 6 out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
André WampachKhanlar Hajiyev
Deputy RegistrarPresident
[1] Sum to be paid to the applicant’s heirs.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy