Přehled
Rozhodnutí
FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 23461/15
Trajan DIMANOVSKI
against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 15 November 2016 as a Committee composed of:
Ledi Bianku, President,
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos,
Aleš Pejchal, judges,
and Renata Degener, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 11 May 2015,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 13 May 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 Trajan Dimanovski, is a Macedonian national, who was born in 1946 and lives in Gostivar.
The Macedonian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr K. Bogdanov.
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the length of civil proceedings.
The application was communicated to the Government.
THE LAW
The applicant complained about the length of civil proceedings. He relied on Article 6 of the Convention.
After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 13 May 2016 the Government informed the Court that they wished 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:
“In this situation the Government would hereby like to express – by a way of unilateral declaration – its acknowledgement that in the special circumstances of the present case, did not fulfil the requirements of the applicants’ rights protected by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the length of proceedings. Consequently, the Government is prepared to pay to the applicant Trajan Dimanovski a sum of 900 EUR (nine hundred euros). In its view, this amount would constitute adequate redress and sufficient compensation for the violation of Article 6 § 1 that the proceedings lasted unreasonably long, 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 costs and expenses and will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. This sum will be payable to the personal account of the applicant within three months from the date of the notification of the Court 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, having in mind the terms of this declaration, 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.”
By a letter of 17 June 2016, 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 the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, 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; Petkovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (dec.), no. 27314/04, 13 November 2008; and Levkovski and Trpkovska v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (dec.), no. 48639/14, 26 January 2016).
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).
The Court considers that the amount to be paid by the Government should be converted into Macedonian Denars at the rate applicable at the date of payment, and paid within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision issued in accordance with Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to settle within this period, simple interest shall be payable on the amount in question at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank plus three percentage points.
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).
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 under Article 6 of the Convention and of the modalities 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 8 December 2016.
Renata Degener Ledi Bianku
Deputy Registrar President