FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 21369/05
by Margareta ŽUPANOSKA and Others
against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 30 November 2010 as a Committee composed of:
Rait Maruste, President,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,
Zdravka Kalaydjieva,
and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 30 May 2005,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 26 May 2010 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicants’ reply to that declaration,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants, Ms Margareta Županoska (“the first applicant”), Ms Vasilikia Misa (“the second applicant”) and Ms Mimoza Čerezoni (“the third applicant”) are Macedonian nationals. The first and the third applicants were born in 1938 and 1947, respectively, and live in Skopje. The second applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Struga. They were represented before the Court by Mr M. Popeski, a lawyer practising in Ohrid. The Macedonian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, R. Lazareska Gerovska. The case mainly concerned the length of non-contentious proceedings in which the applicants claimed compensation of expropriated property. The proceedings started in/or about December 1996 and ended on 1 December 2004 when the Bitola Court of Appeal’s decision of 8 October 2004 was served on the applicants.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention that their case had not been heard within a reasonable time. Relying on the same provision they further alleged that domestic judges had been biased, that the principle of equality of arms and right to access to court in respect of the legality review proceedings had been violated. In addition they invoked Article 14 and Article 1 of Protocol No.1.
THE LAW
1. The applicants complained about the length of the non-contentious 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 26 May 2010 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, inter alia, 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 each of the applicants the global sum of 1,003 euros (one thousand and three 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 personal accounts of the applicants 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 received by the Court on 5 August 2010 the applicants stated that they did not agree with the declaration, as they had also lodged other complaints apart from the one about the length of the proceedings.
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 this part of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine). Accordingly, it should be struck out of the list.
2. The applicants further complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that that domestic judges had been biased, that the principle of equality of arms and right to access to court in respect of the legality review proceedings had been violated. In addition they invoked Article 14 and Article 1 of Protocol No.1.
The Court has examined the remainder of the complaints as submitted by the applicants. 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 applicants have failed to substantiate their 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.
Stephen PhillipsPresident
Deputy RegistrarRait Maruste
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy