CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 10 mai 2011

.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 } .sB90861A5 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .sB2EDE122 { width:158.28pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 17395/08 by Milivoje ZLATKOVIĆ against Serbia The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 10   May 2011 as a Committee composed of:   András Sajó, President,   Dragoljub Popović,   Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque, judges, and Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 31 March 2008, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Milivoje Zlatković, is a Serbian national who was born in 1932 and lives in Vršac. He was represented before the Court by Mr I. Kocić, a lawyer practising in Belgrade. 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 29 June 1994 the applicant filed a claim for the breach of contract against a Serbian company and a natural person M.L. before the First Commercial Court in Belgrade. Following the insolvency of the company, on 29 February 2000 the Commercial Court disputed the applicant’s claim and referred the applicant to the First Municipal Court in Belgrade to initiate civil proceedings. On 18 November 2004 the Municipal Court stayed these proceedings pending the outcome of the bankruptcy proceedings. On 8 November 2006 the Municipal Court considered the applicant’s claim against the said company withdrawn and further rejected his claim against L.M. On 25 November 2006 the applicant appealed against this decision. On 31 March 2010 the Court of Appeal in Belgrade rejected the applicant’s appeal and upheld the judgment of 8 November 2006. THE LAW Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant complain about the excessive length of this property-related civil suit that he instituted on 29 June 1994. By letter dated 18 October 2010 the Government informed the Court that they proposed 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: “I declare that the Government of the Republic of Serbia is ready to accept that there had been a violation of the applicant’s right under Article 6 paragraph 1 of the Convention and offer to pay to the applicant, Mr Milivoje Zlatković, the amount of EUR 3,000 in respect of the application registered under no. 17395/08 before the European Court of Human Rights. This sum, which covers non-pecuniary damage as well as costs, shall be paid in dinar counter-value, free of any taxes that may be applicable to an account [specified] by the applicant. The sum shall be payable within three months from the date of delivery of the decision of the Court. This payment will constitute the final resolution of the case. The Government regret the occurrence of the actions which have let to the bringing of the present application. ” In a letter of 7 February 2011 the applicant failed to comment on the Government’s declaration. The Court recalls 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 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); WAZA Spółka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.) no. 11602/02, 26   June   2007; and Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.) no. 28953/03). The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Serbia, 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 ‑ ....; Stevanović v. Serbia , no.   26642/05, §§ 53-55, 9   October 2007; and Ilić v. Serbia , no. 30132/04, §§ 85-89, 9 October 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 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 ). For these reasons, the Court unanimously Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration under Articles 6 § 1 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. Françoise Elens-Passos   András Sajó Deputy Registrar   President