FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 11190/07
Tomislav VELJANOVSKI
against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 13 March 2012 as a Committee composed of:
Anatoly Kovler, President,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,
Erik Møse, judges,
and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 20 February 2007,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 15 September 2011 requesting the Court to strike the length complaint out of the list of cases and the applicant’s reply to that declaration,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Tomislav Veljanovski, is a Macedonian national who was born in 1935 and lives in Skopje. The Macedonian Government (“the Government”) were represented by the then Agent, Mrs R. Lazareska Gerovska, succeeded to by Mr K. Bogdanov, the new Agent. The case mainly concerns the length of civil proceedings in which the applicant claimed restitution of a plot of land. The proceedings started on 2 November 2001 and ended on 29 August 2006 when the Skopje Court of Appeal’s decision of 8 June 2006 was served on the applicant.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that his case had not been heard within a reasonable time. Relying on the same provision he further alleged that domestic judges had been biased. The applicant also complained about errors on the facts and law and about the assessment and admissibility of evidence. Lastly, he invoked Article 13 and Article 1 of Protocol No.1 to the Convention.
THE LAW
1. The applicant complained about the length of the civil proceedings under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. This provision provides as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
By letter dated 15 September 2011, 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:
“... 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 fulfil 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 1,260 euros (one thousand two hundred sixty euros). In its view, this amount would constitute adequate redress and sufficient compensation for the impugned length of the said proceedings, 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 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 ... ...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”
In a letter of 20 October 2011 the applicant expressed the view that the sum mentioned in the Government’s declaration was unacceptably low.
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 wish 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); WAZA Spółka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.) no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.) no. 28953/03).
Having regard to the Court’s practice in this field (see 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) and 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 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 the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.
2. The applicant further complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that that domestic courts’ judges had been biased. Relying on the same Article the applicant further alleged errors on the facts and law and complained about the assessment and admissibility of evidence. In addition he invoked Article 13 and Article 1 of Protocol No.1.
The Court has examined the remainder of the application as submitted by the applicant. However, having regard to all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that the applicant has failed to substantiate his complaints. 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 this part of the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
André WampachAnatoly Kovler
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy