TROŠIĆ proti Srbsku

SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 8745/21
Dragutin TROŠIĆ
against Serbia

(see appended table)

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 2 June 2022 as a Committee composed of:

Jovan Ilievski, President,
Gilberto Felici,
Diana Sârcu, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 8 December 2020,

Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases, and the applicant’s reply to this declaration,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The applicant’s details are set out in the appended table.

The applicant was represented by Mr D. Samardžić, a lawyer practising in Kruševac.

The applicant’s complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 concerning the non-enforcement of a domestic decision given against a socially/State-owned company were communicated to the Serbian Government (“the Government”).

THE LAW

After unsuccessful friendly-settlement negotiations, 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 the non-enforcement of a domestic decision given against a socially/State-owned company. They offered to pay the applicant 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 Government also undertake to ensure the enforcement of the domestic decision under consideration within the same three-month period, and to pay any costs of the domestic enforcement proceedings.

The payment and the enforcement of the domestic decision will constitute the final resolution of the case.

The applicant was sent the terms of the Government’s unilateral declaration several weeks before the date of this decision. The Court has not received a response from the applicant accepting the terms of the declaration.

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 applicant wishes 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 complaints relating to the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions given against socially/State-owned companies (see, for example, R. Kačapor and Others v. Serbia, nos. 2269/06 and 5 others, 15 January 2008).

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)).

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 23 June 2022.

Viktoriya Maradudina Jovan Ilievski
Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

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

(non-enforcement of domestic decisions given against socially/State-owned company)

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

[2] Less any amounts which may have already been paid in that regard at the domestic level.

[3] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant