CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 1 octobre 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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sDE1FCA9C { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s901B8D2A { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; list-style-position:inside } .s97296F0 { width:0.81pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .s85F2BDF { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:30pt; font-size:9pt } n FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 2587/08 Zora JOVANOVA against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and 5 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 1   October 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 applications lodged on the dates set out in the appendix below, Having regard to the declarations submitted by the respondent Government on the dates set out in the appendix, requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases and the applicants’ replies to those declarations, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE All applicants are Macedonian nationals and the second applicant in the application no. 51566/08 is a company incorporated in the respondent State. A list of the applicants with their personal details and the names of their representatives, is set out in the appendix. The Macedonian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr K. Bogdanov. The applicants complained under different Articles of the Convention with respect to different types of proceedings, as set out in the appendix. The applications, in respect of the length of the proceedings, were communicated to the Government. THE LAW Having regard to the similarity of the main issue under the Convention, the Court decides to join the applications listed in the appendix and consider them in a single decision. After failing to reach a friendly settlement, by letters of different dates set out in the appendix, the respondent Government informed the Court that they proposed to make unilateral declarations with a view to resolving the issue in respect of the length of the proceedings. They further requested the Court to strike out the applications in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention. The declarations 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 fulfil the requirements of the applicant[s] rights protected by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.   Consequently, the Government is prepared to pay the global sum of [as specified in the appendix for each separate application] euros to [the applicant[s] name]. In its view, this amount would constitute adequate redress and sufficient compensation for the violation of Article 6 § 1 that the domestic proceedings lasted unreasonably long, 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 the personal account of the applicant[s] within three months from the date of the notification of the Court 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[s] by virtue of that provision. Therefore, the Government invites the Court to strike the application out of its list of cases.” By letters of different dates some applicants replied indicating that they were not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declarations. 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 applications” . It also recalls that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an applications under Article 37 § 1(c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicants wish the examination of the cases to be continued. To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declarations in the light of the principles established in its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment ( Tahsin Acar v.   Turkey , [GC], no.   26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; see also 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 the respondent State, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of Article 6 § 1 about one’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see Petkovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no.   27314/04, 13   November 2008; Ajvazi v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no.   30956/05, 13   November 2008, Frydlender v.   France [GC], no.   30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII; Cocchiarella v.   Italy [GC], no.   64886/01, §§ 69-98, ECHR 2006; Majewski v.   Poland , no.   52690/99, 11   October 2005; and Wende and Kukówka v.   Poland , no.   56026/00, 10   May 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 applications (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 applications (Article 37 § 1 in fine ). The Court considers that the amounts set out in the appendix should be converted into the national currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of payment and paid within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision issued in accordance with Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to settle within this period, simple interest shall be payable on the amounts in question at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank plus three percentage points. Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application could be restored to the list in accordance with Article   37 § 2 of the Convention ( Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4   March 2008). In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases out of the list in the part concerning the length complaint. The applicants also raised other complaints with reference to various Articles of the Convention and its Protocols. Having regard to all the evidence in its possession, and in so far as it has jurisdiction to examine the allegations, the Court has not found any appearance of a breach of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the applications 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 Decides to join the applications; Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declarations concerning the applicants’ length complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein; Decides to strike the part of the applications regarding the length complaint out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. Declares the remainder of the applications inadmissible.   André Wampach   Elisabeth Steiner   Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX   No Application No Lodged on Applicant’s name Date of birth/ registration Place of residence   Represented by Subject matter (domestic proceedings no.) Articles invoked Date of Government’s unilateral declaration Sum awarded in euros   2587/08 19/12/2007 Zora JOVANOVA 09/03/1957 Skopje   Dančo NIKOLOVSKI Labour proceedings for dismissal П.бр. 1278/03 Articles 6 § 1 and 14 Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 01/07/2013 990   6201/08 31/12/2007 Roska ŠINDEVA 29/08/1956 Štip Daniel ŠINDEV Štip Ivan ŠINDEV Štip   Trajče TOROV Civil proceedings for payment of debt Пст.бр. 355/97 Article 6 § 1 and 13 Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 28/08/2012 3,500 (jointly)   6459/08 15/01/2008 Sande ATANASOV 28/09/1959 v. Bistrenci, Demir Kapija     Labour proceedings for dismissal П.бр. 105/02 Article 6 § 1 13/07/2012 700   37023/08 24/07/2008 Mitko TANEV 04/02/1958 Strumica Milos PERTEMOV Civil proceedings for a plot of land П.бр. 625/03   Article 6 § 1 Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 20/06/2012 1,400   51566/08 13/10/2008 Vasil JANKULOV 12/01/1948 Gevgelija DŽIPOT DOOEL 28/04/1995 Gevgelija   Dine AJCEV Civil proceedings for property П.бр. 457/98   Article 6 § 1 Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 20/06/2012 2,240 (each)   61293/08 13/12/2008 Borče KULEVSKI 25/10/1962 Bitola   Vukica NAUMOVSKA Labour proceedings for dismissal from work П.бр.1102/03 Articles 6 § 1 and 14 19/06/2012 770