CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 2 décembre 2008

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s8859A5EC { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s401C450A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sAEEC8BC4 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7714A00D { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s662A0995 { width:8.93pt; display:inline-block } .s5AA04E69 { width:166.62pt; display:inline-block } .sF2E32F9B { width:36.61pt; display:inline-block } .s5F32E900 { width:208.31pt; display:inline-block }   FIFTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Applications nos. 5258/06; 7652/06; 11985/06; 23724/06; 23756/06; 24563/06; 35154/06 and 40847/06 by Gligor PECEV   The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 2   December 2008 as a Chamber composed of:   Peer Lorenzen, President,   Rait Maruste,   Karel Jungwiert,   Renate Jaeger,   Mark Villiger,   Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,   Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges, and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 20 January 2006, Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Gligor Pecev, is a Macedonian national who was born in 1934 and lives in Skopje. He was represented before the Court by Mr   N.   Tosev, a lawyer practising in Strumica. The Macedonian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs R. Lazareska Gerovska. The applications concern several sets of proceedings that the applicant instituted against third parties claiming the title to business premises:   - Application no. 5258/06: The proceedings concerning a claim for determination of an occupancy right ( утвдување на право на владение ) started on 5 May 1999 and ended on 31 August 2005, when the Štip Court of Appeal’s decision of 24   June   2005, was served on the applicant. - Application no. 7652/06: The proceedings concerning a claim for unlawful enrichment started on 17 February 1999 and ended on 23 January 2006, when the Štip Court of Appeal’s decision of 7 December 2005 was served on the applicant.   - Application no. 11985/06: The proceedings concerning a claim for unlawful enrichment started on 3   June 1998 and ended on 23 January 2006, when the Štip Court of Appeal’s decision of 7 December 2005 was served on the applicant. - Application no. 23724/06: The proceedings concerning a claim for a rent payment started in 1997 and ended on 7 July 2005, when the Štip Court of Appeal’s decision of 24   June 2005 was served on the applicant. - Application no. 23756/06: The proceedings concerning a claim for unlawful enrichment started on 17 February 1999 and ended on 23 January 2006, when the Štip Court of Appeal’s decision of 22 December 2005 was served on the applicant. - Application no. 24563/06: The proceedings concerning a claim for determination of an occupancy right ( утвдување на право на владение ) started on 6 July 1998 and ended on 23 January 2006, when the Štip Court of Appeal’s decision of 7   December 2005 was served on the applicant. - Application no. 35154/06: The proceedings concerning a claim for unlawful enrichment started on 17 February 1999 and ended on 8 May 2006, when the Štip Court of Appeal’s decision of 7 March 2006 was served on the applicant. - Application no. 40847/06: The proceedings concerning a claim for determination of an occupancy right ( утвдување на право на владение ) started on 23 April 1998 and ended on 8 May 2006, when the Štip Court of Appeal’s decision of 7   March   2006 was served on the applicant. COMPLAINTS The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that his cases had not been heard within a reasonable time. He complained also that the domestic courts had not given weight to his arguments and that the sitting judges had been corrupted and biased. Invoking Article 13 of the Convention the applicant complained that the domestic court’s decisions had been unreasoned. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention, the applicant alleged that his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions had been infringed. Lastly, he invoked Article 34 of the Convention. THE LAW On 14 May 2008 the Court received the following declaration from the Government: “I, Radica Lazareska Gerovska, Agent of the Government, declare that the Government of the Republic of Macedonia offer to pay ex gratia 13,000 euros to Mr Gligor Pecev with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned cases pending before the European Court of Human Rights. This sum, which is to cover any non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be converted into Macedonian Denars 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 cases.” On 6 May 2008 the Court received a declaration, duly signed by the applicant, which read, inter alia , as follows: “I, Gligor Pecev, the applicant, note that the Government of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia are prepared to pay me ex gratia the sum of 13,000 euros with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned cases pending before the European Court of Human Rights ... I   accept the proposal and waive any further claims against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in respect of the facts giving rise to these applications. I declare that this constitutes a final resolution of the cases.” 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 and finds no public policy reasons to justify a continued examination of the applications (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). In view of the above, they should be struck out of the list. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases.   Claudia Westerdiek   Peer Lorenzen   Registrar   President