CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 27 mai 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 } .s701081D1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:left } .sE0372AB5 { width:21.8pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sBF0FE613 { width:36pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2D726B78 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s16BDBD5C { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sA20670C4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; 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 } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB1B96619 { width:160.61pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block }   FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 45482/08 Tomislav JOVEVSKI against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 27   May   2014 as a Committee composed of:   Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos, President ,   Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,   Ksenija Turković, judges, and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 16 April 2007, Having regard to the Government’s observations and the applicant’s submissions, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Tomislav Jovevski, is a Macedonian national, who was born in 1939 and lives in Skopje. He was represented before the Court by his son, Mr J. Jovevski. The Macedonian Government (“the Government”) were initially represented by their former Agent, Mrs   R.   Lazareska Gerovska, and subsequently by their present Agent, Mr   K. Bogdanov. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. a) Administrative proceedings for rectification of cadastre records On 31 January 2003 the applicant initiated administrative proceedings for rectification of cadastre records. On 23 July 2003 he appealed against the decision of the first-instance administrative body. The case was remitted on several occasions. On 8 April 2011 the first-instance administrative body made a decision, which has not yet been served to the applicant. Since this new decision could be appealed against, the proceedings are accordingly still pending. b) Length remedy proceedings before the Supreme Court On 12 January 2009 the applicant lodged a length remedy before the Supreme Court. On 15 December 2009 the first-instance panel of the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s length remedy finding that the length of the proceedings was not excessive. On 12 April 2010 the Supreme Court’s second-instance panel accepted the applicant’s appeal and reversed the first-instance panel’s decision finding that the length of the proceedings had been excessive. It awarded the applicant the equivalent of approximately 500 euros (EUR) and set a three-month time-limit for the administrative body to decide the case. On 19   May   2010 the awarded amount was paid to the applicant. On 7   June   2010 the administrative body rendered a decision, within the time-limit set by the Supreme Court. B.     Relevant domestic law and practice The provisions relevant to the present case were described in Adži   Spirkoska and others v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (dec.), no. 38914/05, 3 November 2011. COMPLAINTS The applicant complained under Article 6 about the length of the proceedings. He also invoked Article 13 of the Convention. THE LAW The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the impugned proceedings lasted unreasonably long. He also invoked Article   13. These Articles, in so far as relevant, read as follows: Article 6 § 1 “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...” Article 13 “Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.” The complaint under Article 6 about the length of the administrative proceedings was communicated to the Government. 1. Length complaint (a) The parties’ submissions The Government submitted that the Supreme Court’s decision of 12   April 2010 removed the applicant’s “victim” status in respect of the length complaint. The applicant contested the Government’s position arguing that his victim status could be removed only if his claim in the impugned administrative proceedings was upheld. (b) The Court’s assessment The Court notes that the length remedy, when used in the present case (2009), was not considered to be effective. Nevertheless, the Court reaffirms that as regards length cases in which the remedy was exhausted by the applicant, any redress provided by the Supreme Court shall be assessed through the prism of whether the applicants can still be considered to be victims within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention (see Adži   Spirkoska and others, cited above). The Court notes that the Supreme Court, in the decision of 12   April   2010, acknowledged a violation of the reasonable-time requirement, awarded the applicant approximately 500 EUR in just satisfaction and set a three-month time-limit for the administrative body to decide the case. The Court finds that the awarded amount is not manifestly unreasonable, that it was paid to the applicant and that the administrative body complied with the time-limit set by the Supreme Court. The Court finds this to be a sufficient redress to remove the applicant’s victim status regarding the time which was under the Supreme Court’s consideration. Accordingly, the length complaint in this respect is incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35   §   3 (a) and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35   §   4. As to the remaining part of the proceedings, which post-dated the Supreme Court’s decision of 12 April 2010 and are still pending to date, the Court considers that the applicant is required to exhaust the length remedy before the Supreme Court, which was and still is available to him (see Adži   Spirkoska and others cited above, Fakhretdinov and others v. Russia (dec.), nos. 26716/09, 67576/09 and 7698/10, ECHR 23 September 2010 and Nagovitsin and Nagliyev v. Russia (dec.), nos. 27451/09 and 60650/09, ECHR 23 September 2010). Furthermore, the applicant did not avail himself of the remedies available for the acceleration of the proceedings in the event of administrative inactivity (see Taneva and others v. the former   Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (dec.), no. 11363/03, ECHR   10   November   2009). In light of the above and having in mind its subsidiary role, the Court finds that the length complaint is inadmissible for the non-exhaustion of the domestic remedies (see Demopoulos and Others v. Turkey (dec.) [GC], §§   69-70, nos. 46113/99, 3843/02, 13751/02, 13466/03, 10200/04, 14163/04, 19993/04 and 21819/04, ECHR 2010). It follows that in this part the length complaint must be rejected under Article   35 §§   1 and   4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. 2. Article 13 complaint The applicant also invoked, without any further explanation, Article 13 of the Convention. It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Declares the application inadmissible. André Wampach   Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos Deputy Registrar   President