THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 48713/07
Bogdan VUKOVIĆ
against Serbia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 15 January 2019 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 8 September 2007,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 22 November 2016 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, Mr Bogdan Vuković, is a Serbian national, who was born in 1941 and lives in Belgrade.
The Serbian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms N. Plavšić.
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the non-enforcement of a final domestic judgment rendered in his favour against a private entity, in the enforcement proceedings which were initiated on 22 June 1995 and are, apparently, still pending.
This complaint was communicated to the Government under Article 6 of the Convention.
THE LAW
After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 14 March 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 Mr Bogdan Vuković, the amount of EUR 3.350 less any amounts which may have already been paid in that regard at the domestic level in order to cover any non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant in respect of the application registered under no. 48713/07 before the European Court of Human Rights.
This sum 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 to strike the case out of its list of cases.
This payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.
The Government regret the occurrence of the actions which have led to the bringing of the present application”
By a letter of 27 April 2017, the applicant indicated that he was not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral 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). Nevertheless, in the particular circumstances of the case, the Court considers that the State should still ensure that all necessary steps are taken to allow the proceedings to be concluded as speedily as possible, whilst ensuring the proper administration of justice.
Accordingly, this part of the application should be struck out of the list.
Since the impugned proceedings appear to be still pending, it is to be noted that the Court’s strike-out decision is without prejudice to the applicant’s ability to obtain redress for any additional procedural delay which may occur after the date of the present decision.
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).
The applicant lastly complains about the violation of his property rights. The final domestic judgment in question was rendered against a private entity, whereas State responsibility for enforcement of a judgment against a private company extends no further than the involvement of State bodies in the enforcement procedures (see Shestakov v. Russia, 18 June 2002, no. 48757/99). It follows that this complaint must be rejected as manifestly ill-founded.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 inadmissible;
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, in so far as it concerns this complaint, out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
Done in English and notified in writing on 7 February 2019.
Fatoş AracıPere Pastor Vilanova
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy