CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 2 septembre 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 } .sDE1FCA9C { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .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 } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sBAD0D18F { width:1.87pt; display:inline-block } .sC9D6F765 { width:209.11pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 3296/09 Novica STOJANOVIĆ against Serbia The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on on 2   September 2014 as a Committee composed of:   Ján Šikuta, President,   Dragoljub Popović,   Iulia Antoanella Motoc, judges, and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 12 December 2008, Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 26 March 2014 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicant’s reply to that declaration, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant, Mr Novica Stojanović, is a Serbian national, who was born in 1960 and lives in Vranje. He was represented before the Court by Mr Lj. Tomašević, a lawyer practising in Vranje. The Serbian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent Ms V. Rodić. On 4 November 2004 the Vranje Municipal Court adopted a judgment in the applicant’s favour according to which “ Yumco ” AD, a socially/State-owned company based in Vranje, was ordered to pay him certain sums. On 6 June 2005 the applicant lodged an application for the enforcement of the above judgment with the Vranje Municipal Court. On 8 June 2005 the court allowed the application and issued an enforcement order. Without invoking any article of the Convention the applicant complained about the respondent State’s failure to enforce the final domestic decision rendered in his favour against a socially/State-owned company. The application was communicated under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. THE LAW After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 26 March 2014 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the application. The declaration provided as follows: “ I declare that the Government of the Republic of Serbia is ready to acknowledge that there had been a violation of the applicant’s right under Articles 6 (1) and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and offer to pay to the applicant, Novica Stojanović, the amount of EUR 1,800 in respect of the application registered under no. 3296/09 before the European Court of Human Rights. This sum, which is to cover any non-pecuniary damage as well as the costs and expenses, will be converted into RSD at the rate applicable on the date of payment, free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court to strike the case out of its list of cases. I further declare that within the same three-month period the Government offer to pay to the applicant, from their own funds, the sums awarded in the domestic decision (P. 2091/03 of 4 November 2004) under consideration in this case, less any amounts which may have already been paid on the basis of the said decision, plus the costs of the domestic enforcement proceedings. These payments will constitute the final resolution of the case pending before the European Court of Human Rights. The Government regret the occurrence of the actions which have led to the bringing of the present application. ” By a letter of 25 April 2014, the applicant indicated that he was not entirely satisfied with the terms of the unilateral 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 non ‑ enforcement of final domestic decision rendered against socially/State–owned companies (see, for example, R. Kačapor and Others v. Serbia, nos.   2269/06, 3041/06, 3042/06, 3043/06, 3045/06 and 3046/06, 15   January   2008; Crnišanin and Others v. Serbia, nos. 35835/05, 43548/05, 43569/05 and 36986/06, 13 January 2009; Rašković and Milunović v.   Serbia, nos. 1789/07 and 28058/07, 31 May 2011; Milunović and Čekrlić v. Serbia (dec.), nos. 3716/09 and 38051/09, 17 May 2011; and Stošić v.   Serbia , no. 64931/1, 1 October 2013). Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed, 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 ). Further, the Court interprets the Government’s declaration as meaning that in the event of failure to settle within the three-month period indicated in that declaration, simple interest shall be payable on the amount 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). For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention, as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to 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.   Marialena Tsirli   Ján Šikuta Deputy Registrar   President