CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 16 décembre 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 } .sC800182F { font-family:Arial; color:#0000ff } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s8F670191 { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; list-style-position:inside } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s4EFEAD { width:14.32pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 48547/12 Stanimirka MILETIĆ against Serbia and 19 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 16   December   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 applications lodged between 23 July 2012 and 1 November 2012, Having regard to the declarations submitted by the respondent Government on 10 October 2013 requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. They were all represented by Mr. I. Kalić, a lawyer practicing in Novi Pazar. The Serbian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent Ms V. Rodić. The applicants are former employees of Raška Holding u restruktuiranju (the debtor) , a socially-owned company. They obtained final court decisions ordering the debtor to pay them certain sums. Relying on Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention, as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention the applicants complained about the failure by the national authorities to enforce those decisions. The applications had been communicated to the Government . THE LAW The Court considers that, in accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the applications should be joined, given their similar factual and legal background. After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 10 October 2010 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make unilateral declarations with a view to resolving the issue raised by the applications. They further requested the Court to strike out the applications in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention. The declaration in respect of each application provided as follows: “the Government of the Republic of Serbia is ready to accept that there had been a violation of the applicant’s right under Article 6 paragraph 1 and Article 13 of the Convention, as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and offer to pay to the applicant, [the applicant’s name], the amount of EUR 1,800 [one thousand eight hundred euro]... This sum, which covers any and all non-pecuniary damage as well as any and all costs, shall be paid in dinar counter-value, free of any taxes that may be applicable and to an account named by the applicant. The sum shall be payable within three months from the date of delivery of the decision of the Court. ..further ... the Government offer to pay to the applicant, from their own funds, the sums awarded in the domestic decision(s) under consideration in this case, less any amounts which may have already been paid on the basis of the said decision(s), plus the costs of the domestic enforcement proceedings. These payments will constitute the final resolution of the case. The Government regret the occurrence of the actions which have led to the bringing of the present application. ” The applicants did not respond to the Government’s 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 Government’s declarations 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 declarations, as well as the amount of compensation proposed, 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 ). Further, the Court interprets the Government’s declarations as meaning that in the event of failure to settle within the three-month period indicated in those declarations, 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 declarations, the applications 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. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declarations under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention and 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 applications out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.   Marialena Tsirli   Ján Šikuta Deputy Registrar   President   Appendix   No. Application No. Lodged on Applicant Date of birth Place of residence Represented by   48547/12 23/07/2012 Stanimirka MILETIĆ 01/10/1949 Selo Postenje   Ismet KALIĆ   50004/12 30/07/2012 Sanija LAKOTA 19/09/1962 Novi Pazar   Ismet KALIĆ   52159/12 04/08/2012 Mirsad BRUNČEVIĆ 05/06/1961 Novi Pazar   Ismet KALIĆ   52170/12 06/08/2012 Sadija LOŠOVIĆ 23/04/1957 Novi Pazar   Ismet KALIĆ   60883/12 12/09/2012 Milaheta BISLIM 01/07/1962 Novi Paza   Ismet KALIĆ   60888/12 12/09/2012 Mileva ĐULČIĆ 01/06/1958 Novi Pazar   Ismet KALIĆ   61586/12 21/09/2012 Ševćeta LOTINAC 28/04/1954 Novi Pazar   Ismet KALIĆ   61853/12 22/09/2012 Vesna ILIĆ 16/03/1975 Novi Pazar   Ismet KALIĆ           63199/12 10/09/2012 Mihrija DAGLAR 20/05/1966 Novi Pazar   Ismet KALIĆ             63418/12 27/09/2012 Milovan VESELINOVIĆ 08/11/1961 Novi Pazar Jelena VESELINOVIĆ 04/11/1989   Novi Pazar   Zagorka VESELINOVIĆ 02/02/1991   Novi Pazar   Tatjana VESELINOVIĆ 09/12/1998 Novi Pazar     Ismet KALIĆ             64865/12 29/09/2012 Deniza ARAPOVIĆ 09/07/1954 Novi Pazar   Ismet KALIĆ             65645/12 03/10/2012 Ajša BAĆIĆANIN 28/03/1960 Novi Pazar   Ismet KALIĆ             65835/12 04/10/2012 Remzija SINANČEVIĆ 30/04/1962 Novi Pazar   Ismet KALIĆ             67898/12 15/10/2012 Zejnel ČEKOVIĆ 16/01/1951 Novi Pazar   Ismet KALIĆ             68020/12 11/10/2012 Hamida IBRAHIMOVIĆ 05/08/1961 Novi Pazar   Ismet KALIĆ             68022/12 11/10/2012 Sabita REDŽOVIĆ 25/02/1966 Novi Pazar   Ismet KALIĆ             68047/12 13/10/2012 Ramka KUČ 15/03/1962 Novi Pazar   Ismet KALIĆ             69084/12 12/10/2012 Gordana MIJAILOVIĆ 21/08/1965 Novi Pazar   Ismet KALIĆ             70968/12 17/10/2012 Grozdana ĐURKOVIĆ 15/05/1963 Novi Pazar   Ismet KALIĆ             72995/12 01/11/2012 Ulfeta ĆOSOVIĆ 01/06/1948 Novi Pazar   Ismet KALIĆ