CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 14 novembre 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .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 } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sFCAD7A46 { width:199.27pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block }     FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 18075/13 Goran DIMITRIEVSKI against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 14   November 2017 as a Committee composed of:   Aleš Pejchal, President,   Krzysztof Wojtyczek,   Armen Harutyunyan, judges, and Renata Degener, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 5 March 2013, Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 23 August 2016 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 Goran Dimitrievski, is a Macedonian national who was born in 1971 and lives in Kumanovo. He was represented before the Court by Ms M. Dumanovska, a lawyer practising in Kumanovo. The Macedonian Government (“the Government”) were initially represented by their former Agent, Mr K. Bogdanov, who was succeeded by Ms D. Djonova. The applicant’s complaint under Article 6   §   1 of the Convention that he was denied access to the Supreme Court regarding a length remedy was communicated to the Government . THE LAW After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, the Government informed the Court by a letter of 23 August 2016 that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the application. They further requested that the Court strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention. The declaration 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, did not fulfil the requirements of the applicant’s rights protected by Article 6   §   1 of the Convention. Consequently, the Government is prepared to pay to the applicant Goran Dimitrievski, a sum of 1,530 EUR (one thousand five hundred and thirty euros). In its view, this amount would constitute adequate redress and sufficient compensation for the violation of Article 6   §   1. 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 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, having in mind the terms of this declaration, 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 by virtue of that provision. Therefore, the Government invites the Court to strike the application out of its list of cases.” The applicant did not comment on the terms of the unilateral declaration. The Court reiterates 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 reiterates 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 has examined the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment ( Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no.   26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; WAZA Sp. z o.o. v. Poland (dec.), no. 11602/02, 26   June   2007; and Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.), no. 28953/03, 18   September   2007). Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which the Court finds to be reasonable given the circumstances of this case – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article   37   §   1   (c)). Moreover, 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 ). 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 case out of the list. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration under Article 6   §   1 of 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.   Done in English and notified in writing on 7 December 2017. Renata Degener   Aleš Pejchal Deputy Registrar   President