FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Applications nos. 22078/17 and 22530/17
TEHNO-INTEREKSPORT DUSHKO DOOEL
against North Macedonia
(see appended table)
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 9 September 2021 as a Committee composed of:
Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, President,
Jovan Ilievski,
Mattias Guyomar, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the two applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The list of applications is set out in the appended table.
The applicant, a limited liability company with the sole owner registered in Skopje, was represented by Mr A. Vasilev, a lawyer practising in Skopje.
The applicant company’s compensation claim against a third person was declared withdrawn after courts of two instances refused its claim to have the payment of court fees postponed due to the lack of funds. The courts found that such a possibility was only reserved for physical persons. Subsequently, the courts of two instances rejected the applicant company’s claim for revocation of the relevant statutory provisions as a matter falling outside their competence.
The applicant company’s complaints were communicated to the Government of the Republic of North Macedonia (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Ms D. Djonova.
THE LAW
Having regard to the related subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.
After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 15 September 2020 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by the applications. They further requested the Court to strike out the applications in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
The Government acknowledged that the interference with the applicant company’s rights under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, Article 14 in conjunction with Article 6 of the Convention and/or Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention had not been in compliance with the requirements of those provisions. They offered to pay the applicant company the amount detailed in the appended table and invited the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. The amount would be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision. In the event of failure to pay this amount within the above-mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on it, from the 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 payment will constitute the final resolution of the cases.
By a letter received on 10 November 2020, the applicant company indicated that it was not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration. It stated that the amount proposed by the Government had been insufficient and that the statute of limitations regarding its compensation claim had expired. It did not, however, provide any further details nor referred to any other particular measure.
The Court observes that Article 37 § 1 (c) enables it 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”.
Thus, it may strike out applications 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 cases to be continued (see, in particular, the Tahsin Acar v. Turkey judgment (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75‑77, ECHR 2003-VI).
Noting the admissions contained in the Government’s unilateral declaration of 15 September 2020, the amount of compensation proposed, which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases, as well as the absence of any relevant details in the applicant’s submissions regarding the unreasonableness of the redress offered by the Government – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the applications (Article 37 § 1 (c)) (see most recently, mutatis mutandis, Korol v. Russia (dec.) [Committee], no. 20129/18, 20 May 2021).
In the light of the above considerations, 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 applications (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the applications may be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention (see Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to join the applications;
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
Done in English and notified in writing on 30 September 2021.
Viktoriya Maradudina Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 6, Article 14 in conjunction with Article 6 and/or Article 1 of
Protocol No. 12 and Article 1 of Protocol No.1 to the Convention
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant company’s name
Representative’s name and location
Date of receipt of Government’s declaration
Date of receipt of applicant company’s comments
Amount awarded jointly
(two applications) for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses
(in euros)[1]
22078/17
03/03/2017
TEHNO-INTEREKSPORT DUSHKO DOOEL
Aco Vasilev
Skopje
15/09/2020
10/11/2020
5,112
22530/17
03/03/2017
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant company.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy