CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 4 mars 2008

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sDD165512 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s71833996 { width:42.55pt; display:inline-block } .sE8F0DF9C { width:277.8pt; display:inline-block } .s7883F973 { width:3.65pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .s9B753B46 { width:198.3pt; display:inline-block } SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 10113/05 by Milorad MARISAVLJEVIĆ against Serbia The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 4   March 2008, as a Chamber composed of:   Françoise Tulkens, President,   Antonella Mularoni,   Ireneu Cabral Barreto,   Rıza Türmen,   Danutė Jočienė,   Dragoljub Popović,   Nona Tsotsoria, judges, and   Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar Having regard to the above application lodged on 24 February 2005, Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together, Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Milorad Marisavljević, is a Serbian national who was born in 1947 and lives in Velika Plana. The Serbian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr S. Carić. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On 12 February 1980 the applicant’s father, a seasonal labourer, issued civil proceedings against his employer, as well as an insurance company, seeking pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages for severe physical injuries suffered at work. Between 29 December 1980 and 25 May 1993, the Municipal Court ( Opštinski sud ) in Velika Plana issued five judgements, ruling partly in favour or against the applicant’s father, but each time the District Court ( Okružni sud ) in Smederevo quashed those judgments on appeal and ordered a retrial. On 23 October 1998 the Municipal Court again ruled partly in favour of the applicant’s father. On 4 September 1999 the applicant’s father died. On 2 November 1999 the applicant personally became a party to the proceedings, as his father’s legal heir. On 20 December 1999 the District Court quashed the Municipal Court’s judgment of 23 October 1998 and ordered a retrial. Between 26 January 2001 and 24 July 2003 the Municipal Court rendered judgments on three separate occasions, but each time the District Court quashed those judgements on appeal and ordered a retrial. From February 2005 until December 2006 eight hearings were held or adjourned. The case appears to be still pending. COMPLAINTS The applicant relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. In substance, however, he complained about the excessive length of the above proceedings, as well as their overall fairness and/or impartiality. THE LAW On 7 January 2008 the Court received the following declaration signed by the Government’s Agent: “I declare that the Government of Serbia offer to pay ex gratia 3,000 euros to Mr   Milorad   Marisavljević with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights. This sum, which is to cover any non-pecuniary damage, suffered as a result of domestic procedural delay, as well as the costs and expenses incurred in the proceedings before this Court, will be converted into the national currency at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it, from 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 pending before the European Court of Human Rights. The applicant’s personal injury claim, pending domestically, shall be considered by the Serbian courts separately and is not affected by this declaration.” The declaration signed and submitted to the Court by the applicant, inter alia , read as follows: “I note that the Government of Serbia are prepared to pay me ex gratia the sum of 3,000 euros with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights ... I accept the proposal and waive any further claims against Serbia in respect of the facts giving rise to this application. I declare that this constitutes the final resolution of my case pending before the European Court of Human Rights. My personal injury claim, pending domestically, shall be considered by the Serbian courts separately and is not affected by this declaration. The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). In view of the above, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 and to strike the case out of the Court’s list. For these reasons, the Court unanimously, Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.         Françoise Elens-Passos Françoise Tulkens   Deputy Registrar   President