THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 2996/16
Katarina VIDOJEVIĆ
against Serbia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 2 October 2018 as a Committee composed of:
Pere Pastor Vilanova, President,
Branko Lubarda,
Georgios A. Serghides, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 6 January 2016,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 7 June 2017 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, Ms Katarina Vidojević, is a Serbian national, who was born in 1947 and lives in Stara Pazova. She was represented before the Court by Mr D. Vujović, a lawyer practising in Stara Pazova.
The Serbian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms N. Plavšić.
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of enforcement proceedings which lasted between 25 April 1994 and 22 May 2012.
This complaint was communicated to the Government.
THE LAW
After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 7 June 2017 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 accept that there had been a violation of the applicant’s right under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and offer to pay to Ms Katarina Vidojević the amount of EUR 3,510 to cover any and all non-pecuniary damage less any amounts which may have already been paid in that regard at the domestic level and EUR 450 to cover any and all costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant in respect of the application registered under no. 2996/16 before the European Court of Human Rights.
These sums will be converted into national currency at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court. In the event of failure to pay these sums within the three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on them, 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.
This payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.
The Government regrets the occurrence of the actions which have led to the bringing of the present application. ”
On 21 July 2017, the Court received a letter from the applicant informing the Court that she was not satisfied with the terms of the Government’s declaration.
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 in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; WAZA Sp. 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 violation of one’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see, for example, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII; Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 69-98, ECHR 2006 V; Majewski v. Poland, no. 52690/99, 11 October 2005; and Wende and Kukówka v. Poland, no. 56026/00, 10 May 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 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).
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 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 accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
Done in English and notified in writing on 25 October 2018.
Fatoş AracıPere Pastor Vilanova
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy