FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 36510/05
by Nikola TRAJANOV
against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 13 November 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Peer Lorenzen, President,
Rait Maruste,
Karel Jungwiert,
Volodymyr Butkevych,
Mark Villiger,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,
Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges,
and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 27 September 2005,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 9 June 2008 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:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Nikola Trajanov, is a Macedonian national who was born in 1936 and lives in Sveti Nikole. He was represented before the Court by Mr D. Gorgievski, a lawyer practising in Sveti Nikole. The Macedonian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs R. Lazareska Gerovska.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 3 January 1993 the applicant brought a civil action against his employer challenging his reassignment. The first first-instance court’s decision dated 25 March 2004. On 2 March 2005 the Court of Appeal finally dismissed his claim. It was served on the applicant on 7 April 2005.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings had been unreasonably lengthy and that the national courts had not decided his claim properly. Relying on Article 14 of the Convention, he alleged having been discriminated against in respect of his colleagues who had not been reassigned. Finally, he complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that his reassignment had affected his monthly income, which ultimately, had decreased the amount of his pension.
THE LAW
1. The applicant complained about the length of the proceedings. He relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention which, in so far as relevant, provides as follows:
Article 6 §1
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
By letter of 9 June 2008 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 would hereby like to express ... its acknowledgement that in the special circumstances of the present case, the length of the domestic proceedings did not fulfill the requirement of “reasonable time” referred to in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention ... Consequently, the Government is prepared to pay to the applicant the global sum of EUR 1,540 (one thousand five hundred and forty euros). In its view, this amount would constitute adequate redress and sufficient compensation for the impugned length of the said proceedings ... 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 an account named by the applicant within three months from the date of the notification of the decision pursuant to 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.”
In a letter of 18 July 2008 the applicant requested that the Court rejects the Government’s proposal stating that the sum mentioned in the Government’s unilateral declaration was “completely irrational”.
The Court observes at the outset that the parties were unable to agree on the terms of a friendly settlement of the case. It recalls that, according to Article 38 § 2 of the Convention, friendly-settlement negotiations are confidential and that Rule 62 § 2 of the Rules of Court further stipulates that no written or oral communication and no offer or concession made in the framework of an attempt to secure a friendly settlement may be referred to or relied on in contentious proceedings. However, the declaration was made by the Government on 9 June 2008 outside the framework of the friendly-settlement negotiations.
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”.
The Court 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 emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (Tahsin Acar v. Turkey, [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI).
The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see Markoski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 22928/03, 2 November 2006 and Ziberi v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 27866/02, 5 July 2007).
Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is compatible 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 this part of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine). Accordingly, it should be struck out of the list.
2. The Court has examined the remainder of the applicant’s complaints and found no appearance of a violation of any of her rights protected by the Convention.
It follows that this part of the application 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 in respect of the length-of-proceedings 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.
Claudia WesterdiekPeer Lorenzen
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy