CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 17 septembre 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5E698226 { width:12.01pt; display:inline-block } .s3480A186 { width:173.6pt; display:inline-block } .s64406319 { width:11.68pt; display:inline-block } .s7B0354FA { width:193.28pt; display:inline-block }   FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 50248/07 Bore TODOROVSKI against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 17   September 2013 as a Committee composed of:   Elisabeth Steiner, President,   Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,   Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos, judges,   and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 31 October 2007, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Bore Todorovski, is a Macedonian national, who was born in 1956 and lives in Kriva Palanka. His application was lodged on 31   October 2007. He was represented before the Court by Mr J. Aleksovski, a lawyer practising in Kriva Palanka.   The Macedonian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs R. Lazareska Gerovska. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On 27 September 2001 preliminary investigations were opened against the applicant on reasonable suspicion of abuse of office. On 9 December 2003 the trial court acquitted the applicant with a judgment which was set aside on 6 May 2004 by the Skopje Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”). Between 25 October 2005 and 18 October 2006 the case was re-examined on two occasions. On 18 December 2006 the trial court again acquitted the applicant. On 2   May 2007 the Court of Appeal rejected an appeal by the public prosecutor since the Higher Public Prosecutor’s Office (Вишо јавно обвинителство) had previously withdrawn ( се откажа од жалбата ). On 9 July 2007 the applicant lodged a length remedy with the Supreme Court. On 17 November 2008 the Supreme Court found that the length of impugned proceedings (five years, seven months and seven days) was unreasonable. It also awarded the applicants compensation in the amount of 62,000 Macedonian denars (MKD) by way of just satisfaction for the violation found. The compensation was to be paid three months after the decision became final. This decision was upheld on appeal on 23   March   2009 by the second-instance panel of the Supreme Court. On 16   November 2009 the compensation awarded by the Supreme Court was transferred to the applicant’s account. THE LAW The applicant complained that his case had not been heard within a reasonable time, in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which, insofar as relevant, reads as follows: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to ... a hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...” A.     The parties’ submissions The Government submitted that the applicant had successfully used the length remedy and had received a decision in which the Supreme Court had awarded him sufficient compensation that had removed his status of a victim as regards the length complaint. The applicants contested the Government’s arguments. B.     The Court’s assessment The Court observes that the applicant’s victim status depends on whether the redress afforded to the applicant by the Supreme Court was adequate and sufficient having regard to Article 41 of the Convention (see Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC] , no. 64886/01, §§ 69-98, ECHR 2006-V; Arvanitaki-Roboti and Others v. Greece [GC] , no. 27278/03, § 29, 15   February 2008; and Ogražden Ad and Others v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , nos. 35630/04, 53442/07 and 42580/09, § 15, 29   May 2012). The Court notes that the Supreme Court, in its decision of 17 November 2008, acknowledged that there had been a violation of the “reasonable time” requirement in respect of the criminal proceedings complained of and awarded the applicant the equivalent of MKD 62,000 by way of just satisfaction. It considers that that amount is not manifestly unreasonable having regard to what it generally awards in similar cases against the respondent State (see, mutatis mutandis , Stoleski and Siljanoska v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no. 17547/04, 5 November 2009, and Graberska v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no. 6924/03, 14 June 2007). It further notes that the compensation awarded by the Supreme Court was transferred to the applicant’s account on 16 November 2009. In such circumstances, the Court is satisfied that the Supreme Court’s decision of 17 November 2008 provided him with sufficient and appropriate redress capable of removing his victim status within the meaning of Article   34 of the Convention.   Against this background, the Court considers that the applicant can no longer claim to be a victim of a violation of the “reasonable time” requirement under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in respect of the criminal proceedings. Accordingly, this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Declares the application inadmissible.   André Wampach   Elisabeth Steiner   Deputy Registrar   President