CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 1 avril 2014

.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 } .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 } .sE63CF00A { width:144.24pt; 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 } .s8BB6D734 { margin-right:9pt; margin-left:9pt; 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 } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .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 } .s70A7D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:7pt } .s72F8249F { font-family:Arial; display:none }   FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 10001/09 Kamelija PIPEREVSKA against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and 3 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 1   April   2014 as a Committee composed of:   Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque, 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 on the dates set out in the appendix in which the respondent Government requested 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. A list of the applicants and their representatives is set out in the appendix attached to this decision. The Macedonian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr K. Bogdanov. The applicants complained under different Articles of the Convention about 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, with 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 fulfill 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 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.” With 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 declaration 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); 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 these amounts 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 complaints about the length of proceedings. The applicants also raised additional 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   Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque   Deputy Registrar   President No Application No Lodged on Applicant Date of birth Place of residence Represented by Subject matter (domestic proceedings no.) Articles invoked Date of Government’s unilateral declaration Sum awarded in euros   10001/09 10/02/2009 Kamelija PIPEREVSKA 06/09/1971 Skopje Siniša TRAJKOVSKI Civil proceedings for annulment of a purchase agreement ( П.бр.2950/98 ) Article 6 § 1 Article 7 Article 13   13/09/2012 2,880   26044/09 07/05/2009 Ljupčo TRAJKOVSKI 13/04/1955 Skopje   Civil proceedings for annulment of the applicant’s dismissal ( П.бр.825/01 )   Article 6 § 1   25/12/2012 1,800   45965/09 18/08/2009 Vančo SPASESKI 03/01/1957 Skopje Sašo POCEVSKI Compensation proceedings for unpaid work-related allowances ( П.бр.1479/03, РО.бр.2538/07 ) Articles 6 § 1 and 14 13/09/2012 945   60830/09 04/11/2009 Todorka STOJKOVA 07/08/1956 Kočani   Trajko STOJKOV Administrative proceedings for social benefits ( У.бр.2698/05, У.бр.3175/06, У.бр.4775/08 )   Article 6§ 1 Article 13 13/09/2012 1,620