CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 13 janvier 2015

.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 } .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 } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; 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 } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s47F1B6B8 { width:156.25pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block }   FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 4739/05 Blažo VELIČKOV against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 13   January 2015 as a Committee composed of:   Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque, President ,   Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,   Ksenija Turković, judges, and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 18 January 2005, Having regard to the unilateral declaration and the observations submitted by the respondent Government, the observations in reply submitted by the applicant and the subsequent submissions of the parties, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Blažo Veličkov, is a Macedonian national, who lives in Skopje. He was represented before the Court by Mr T. Torov, a lawyer practising in Štip. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 2 December 1993 the applicant initiated enforcement proceedings against two private debtors regarding a final judgment for compensation of damages. On 13 March 2013 the proceedings were transferred to a private bailiff. The proceedings are still pending. COMPLAINTS The applicant complained under Articles 6 and 13 and Article 1 of Protocol No.1 of the Convention about the lengthy non-enforcement of a final court judgment. THE LAW The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the impugned proceedings lasted unreasonably long. He also invoked Article 13 and Article 1 of Protocol No.1. 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.” Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 “Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law. The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.” A.     Length complaint 1.     The parties’ submissions In their submissions of 5 November 2009, the Government maintained that the applicant had failed to avail himself of the domestic length remedy before the Supreme Court. They also submitted a unilateral declaration, only with reference to the length complaint under Article 6 of the Convention, while submitting observations in respect of the remainder of the application. The applicant contested the Government’s arguments. 2.     The Court’s assessment The Court reiterates that, under certain circumstances, it may be appropriate to strike out an application under Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention on the basis of a unilateral declaration by the respondent Government, even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued. It will, however, depend on whether the unilateral declaration offers a sufficient basis for finding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention does not require the Court to continue its examination of the case (Article 37 § 1 in fine; see also Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary issue) [GC], no. 26307/95, § 75, ECHR 2003 ‑ VI). In the present case, the Court does not find it necessary to consider whether the Government’s unilateral declaration offers a basis for striking the application out of the Court’s list of cases, due to the following reasons. The enforcement proceedings are still pending before the bailiff. The length remedy before the Supreme Court, which the Court found effective (see Adži-Spirkoska and Others v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (dec.), nos. 38914/05 and 17879/05, 3 November 2011), thus remains open to the applicant who can claim both a monetary redress and acceleration of the impugned proceedings. It follows that the applicant’s length complaint must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. B.     Remaining complaints The applicant also complained under Article 13 and Article 1 of Protocol   No. 1. The Court has examined these complaints. However, in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, it finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the application 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. Done in English and notified in writing on 5 February 2015 André Wampach   Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque Deputy Registrar   President