CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 13 novembre 2008

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; 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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s507703F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s20AFED81 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sFD4D42B6 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sFFD057F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sCF9645F4 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sE5338F84 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .s7714A00D { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sDB6B63EE { width:176.94pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 40650/05 by Damjan CVETKOSKI against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 13   November 2008 as a Chamber composed of:   Peer Lorenzen, President,   Karel Jungwiert,   Volodymyr Butkevych,   Renate Jaeger,   Mark Villiger,   Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre,   Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 24 October 2005, Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 9 June 2008 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: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Damjan Cvetkoski, is a Macedonian national who was born in 1930 and lives in Kičevo. The Macedonian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs R. Lazareska Gerovska. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. In 1994 the applicant claimed compensation from an insurance company for injuries sustained in a traffic accident. After seven remittal orders, the applicant’s claim was finally dismissed by the Supreme Court’s decision of 20 April 2005, served on him on 8 August 2005. COMPLAINTS The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the unreasonable length of the proceedings. He also complained under this head that the domestic courts had erred in law and that they had disregarded his submissions concerning his health. THE LAW 1. The applicant complained about the length of the proceedings. He relied on Article 6 §   1 of the Convention which, in so far as relevant, provides as follows: Article 6 §1 “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 9 June 2008 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by this part of 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: “... 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 fulfill the requirement of ”reasonable time” referred to in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. Consequently, the Government is prepared to pay to the applicant the global sum of 2.030 euros (two thousand and thirty 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 an account named by the applicant 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 of 18 July 2008 the applicant expressed the view that the sum mentioned in the Government’s declaration was unacceptably low. The Court observes at the outset that the parties were unable to agree on the terms of a friendly settlement of the case. It recalls that, according to Article 38 § 2 of the Convention, friendly-settlement negotiations are confidential and that Rule 62 § 2 of the Rules of Court further stipulates that no written or oral communication and no offer or concession made in the framework of an attempt to secure a friendly settlement may be referred to or relied on in contentious proceedings. However, the declaration was made by the Government on 9 June 2008 outside the framework of the friendly-settlement negotiations. 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”. The Court also recalls 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 will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment ( Tahsin Acar v.   Turkey , [GC], no.   26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI). 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 Markoski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no.   22928/03, 2   November 2006 and Ziberi v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no.   27866/02, 5   July 2007). Having regard 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 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 applicant further complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the domestic courts had erred in law and that they had disregarded his submissions concerning his health. However, the Court considers that this complaint lacks substantiation. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected pursuant to 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; Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in so far as it relates to the above complaint in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention; Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible. Claudia Westerdiek   Peer Lorenzen   Registrar   President