CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 9 octobre 2018

.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 } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .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 } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8BA86F1C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sD2F5C9FD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-after:avoid } .s8B7697D0 { width:20.77pt; display:inline-block } .s71DADAB9 { width:127.41pt; display:inline-block } .sF7DC134C { width:39.46pt; display:inline-block } .s44B8752F { width:177.11pt; display:inline-block }     THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 19933/15 Verica MILAKOVIĆ against Serbia   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 9   October 2018 as a Committee composed of:   Pere Pastor Vilanova, President,   Branko Lubarda,   Georgios A. Serghides, judges, and Stephen Phillips, Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 25 March 2015, Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 21 June 2017 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, Ms Verica Milaković, is a Serbian national, who was born in 1950 and lives in Novi Beograd. She was represented before the Court by Mr P. Savić, a lawyer practising in Belgrade. The Serbian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms N. Plavšić. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of civil proceedings related to certain debt which lasted between 5 October 1993 and 16 March 2011. This complaint was communicated to the Government . THE LAW After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 21 June 2017 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention. The declaration provided as follows: “We declare that 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 § 1 of the Convention taking into consideration that the competent domestic body (Constitutional Court) has already established the violation of the respective constitutional rights concerning the excessive length of the domestic proceedings at issue. However, with a view to secure appropriate settlement of the above mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights, we declare that the Government of Republic of Serbia offer to pay ex gratia to the applicant Ms Verica Milaković the amount of EUR 1,800 to cover any and all non-pecuniary damage less any amounts which may have already been paid in that regard at the domestic level and EUR 500 to cover any and all costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant. The mentioned sums will be converted into national currency at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and 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. In the event of failure to pay these sums within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on them, from expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case. I any case, the Government regrets the occurrence of the actions which have led to the bringing of the present application. ” On 17 January 2018, the Court received a letter from the applicant informing the Court that she was not satisfied with the terms of the Government’s 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). The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Serbia, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see, for example, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII; Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 69-98, ECHR 2006 V; Majewski v. Poland , no. 52690/99, 11 October 2005; and Wende and Kukówka v. Poland, no. 56026/00, 10 May 2007). Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – 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). 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 8 November 2018.   Stephen Phillips   Pere Pastor Vilanova   Registrar   President