KUZMANOVSKA A OSTATNÍ proti Severní Makedonii

SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 25967/18
Kiraca KUZMANOVSKA and Others
against North Macedonia

(see appended table)

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 2 February 2023 as a Committee composed of:

Frédéric Krenc, President,
Diana Sârcu,
Davor Derenčinović, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 28 May 2018,

Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The list of applicants is set out in the appended table.

The applicants were represented by Mr T. Torov, a lawyer practising in Shtip.

The applicants’ complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention concerning restitution proceedings related to goods confiscated from their predecessors were communicated to the Government of North Macedonia (“the Government”).

THE LAW

After the failure of the attempts to reach a friendly settlement, the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by these complaints. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.

The Government acknowledged that the impugned proceedings did not fulfil the requirements of the applicants’ rights protected by Article 6 (alleged arbitrariness of the domestic courts’ judgments) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. They offered to pay the applicants the amounts detailed in the appended table and invited the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. The amounts would be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision. In the event of failure to pay these amounts within the above-mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook 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.

The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.

The applicants were sent the terms of the Government’s unilateral declaration. By a letter received on 3 August 2022, the applicants indicated that they were not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration in that the amount proposed by the Government was insufficient.

The Court observes that Article 37 § 1 (c) enables it 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”.

Thus, it may strike out applications under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicants wish the examination of the case to be continued (see, in particular, the Tahsin Acar v. Turkey judgment (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75‑77, ECHR 2003-VI).

The Court has established clear and extensive case-law concerning the applicants’ complaints relating to the arbitrariness of domestic courts’ judgments and the violation of property rights (see, for example, Kopecky v. Slovakia [GC], no. 44912/98, §§ 49 and 52, ECHR 2004-IX; Khamidov v. Russia, no. 72118/01, § 170, 15 November 2007; and Lelas v. Croatia, no. 55555/08, § 56, 20 May 2010; Anđelković v. Serbia, no. 1401/08, § 24, 9 April 2013; and Pavlović and Others v. Croatia, no. 13274/11, § 45, 2 April 2015).

Noting 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)).

As regards the applicants’ objection to the terms of the unilateral declaration, the Court has, in the absence of further details, no reasons to consider that the compensation offered by the Government constitutes inadequate or otherwise unreasonable redress for the violation of their Convention rights (see Ryabkin and Volokitin v. Russia (dec.), nos. 52166/08 and 8526/09, §§ 49‑50, 28 June 2016, Igranov and Others v. Russia, nos. 42399/13 and 8 others, § 24, 20 March 2018, and, for a similar approach, Korol v. Russia (dec.) [Committee], no. 20129/18, 20 May 2021).

In the light of the above considerations, 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 may be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention (see 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 and of the arrangements 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 2 March 2023.

Viktoriya Maradudina Frédéric Krenc
Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

Application raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants

[2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants