FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 52840/09 Blagoja MITEVSKI against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

The European Court of Human Rights ( First Section ), sitting on 23 June 2015 as a Chamber composed of:

Isabelle Berro , President ,

Elisabeth Steiner,

Khanlar Hajiyev ,

Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska ,

Julia Laffranque ,

Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque,

Erik Møse , judges ,

and Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 28 September 2009 ,

Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 19 June 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

1. The applicant, Mr Blagoja Mitevski , is a Macedonian national, who was born in 1954 and lives in Skopje . He is represented before the Court by Mr J. Naumov , a lawyer practising in Skopje .

2. The Macedonian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr K. Bogdanov .

3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

A . Background to the case

4. The applicant was employed by a socially owned company (“the employer”) registered in Belgrade, Serbia, at the time when both the respondent State and Serbia were part of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. However, during the entire time the applicant was living and working on the territory of the respondent State , where he still lives today.

5. On 10 January 1980 the employer and the local housing department in the respondent State ( Самоуправна интересна заедница на становањето на град Скопје ) (“the Housing Department”) concluded a contract for purchase of an apartment under construction located on the territory of the respondent State. On 15 April 1980 the employer decided to allocate the apartment to the applicant.

6. On 22 April 1981, the applicant, as a holder of a specially protected tenancy ( станарско право ) , concluded an agreement with the Housing Department giving him the right to use ( право на користење ) the allocated apartment. On 23 April 1981 the employer paid the Housing Department the full price for the apartment.

7. On 8 July 1992, in the course of insolvency proceedings conducted before the Commercial Court in Belgrade ( Privredni sud u Beogradu ), the employer ’ s assets, including the apartment allocated to the applicant, were transferred to the Development Fund of Serbia.

8. On 13 December 1995 the Skopje Court of First Instance (“the first ‑ instance court”) dismissed a claim lodged by the applicant against the respondent State for the right to purchase the apartment. The first-instance court established that in view of the outcome of the insolvency proceedings before the Commercial Court in Belgrade in 1992, the owner of the apartment was the Development Fund of Serbia and not the respondent State, which could therefore not be sued ( пасивна легитимација ) . The court found that the apartment had not been registered by the respondent State as socially owned. It also stated that the applicant would have to wait for the division of assets ( делбен биланс ) between the respondent State and Serbia (the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia at that particular time) . A lternatively, he would have to challenge the legal ground s for transferring the apartment to the Development Fund of Serbia “before the competent court and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law ”.

9. In 1997 the applicant discontinued payment of the monthly tenancy fee (rent) ( станарина ) to the Housing Department , which in the meantime was succeeded by the Public Company for the Management of State-owned Housing and Business Premises ( Јавно претпријатие за стопанисување со станбен и деловен простор на Република Македонија ) (“the p ublic c ompany”).

10. On 19 October 2000 the applicant concluded a contract for the sale of the apartment with the Development Fund of Serbia. The contract was concluded on the basis of Serbia ’ s 1992 Housing Act. On the same date , the Development Fund of Serbia issued a certificate attesting that the applicant had settled the debt in full ( izmirio dugovanje u celosti ) and that he could register his ownership of the apartment.

11. On 29 March 2001 the Cadastral Office in Skopje, relying on the purchase contract , registered the applicant ’ s ownership in the cadastral records.

B . The impugned proceedings for payment of rent in 2000

12. On 22 February 2001 the public company lodged a request with the first-instance court for an enforcement decision on seven months ’ unpaid rent in 2000 (May to November), in the amount of 20,174 Macedonian denars (MKD) (approximately 350 euros (EUR) ) to cover the main debt, plus statutory interest.

13. On 28 February 2001 the first-instance court approved the request. The applicant lodged an objection and, as he stated in his application form, the case was registered on 20 February 2003 as a contentious dispute of minor value ( спор од мала вредност ).

14. On 13 May 2008 the first-instance court accepted the public company ’ s claim and ordered the applicant to pay the amount claimed plus interest. The court found that the transfer of the apartment ’ s ownership in 1992 from the employer to the Development Fund of Serbia had contravened the 1993 Act on the compliance of companies registered in the other Former Yugoslav Republics and performing economic activities in the respondent State ( Закон за начинот и постапката на усогласувањето на работењето на претпријатијата и другите правни лица кои вршат стопанска дејност на територијата на Република Македонија, а имаат седиште на територијата на другите републики на поранепна СФРЈ ) (“the Act”). Under section 8 of the Act, some transactions concerning property belonging to socially owned companies registered in other republics of former Yugoslavia but located on the territory of the respondent State, such as apartments allocated to tenants holding tenancy agreement s , were frozen until a succession agreement for former Yugoslavia had been concluded. The first-instance court also established that the applicant ’ s ownership of the apartment was uncontested ( неспорно ) , but that the rent had to be recovered up to the time when the applicant had bought the apartment and that he had not proved that he had paid the rent to the public company. The first-instance court decided that, in view of the applicant ’ s difficult financial situation, each party should bear its own expenses for the proceedings.

15. The applicant appealed , claiming, inter alia, that the State could not sue for the rent since it had not been the owner of the apartment. He further argued that he had bought the apartment from the Development Fund of Serbia as its genuine owner and that the rent for the whole period from 1991 until the date of purchase had been factored into the price that he had paid for the apartment. Therefore, in respect of the period from 1991 to 1997 he had paid the rent twice: to the respondent State and to the Development Fund of Serbia. He also argued that the first-instance court had disregarded the Supreme Court ’ s case-law on the matter.

16. On 9 March 2009 the Skopje Court of Appeal (“the second-instance court”) dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal and upheld the first-instance judgment. It confirmed that, in the light of section 8 of the Act, the employer had no right to enter into any transaction involving the apartment , and the public company had had the right to dispose of and manage ( да располага и управува односно стопанисува ) the apartment until the conclusion of an agreement on the succession of former Yugoslavia. The second-instance court dismissed as irrelevant a complaint concerning judicial inconsistency.

17. The applicant paid the main debt of EUR 350, the statutory interest of around EUR 620 as well as the costs and expenses of the domestic proceedings totalling some EUR 450.

COMPLAINTS

18. The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that his right to property had been violated in view of the domestic courts ’ judgments concerning the payment of rent.

THE LAW

19. B y a letter of 19 June 2014, the respondent Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue s raised in the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.

20. The declaration read as follows:

“ ... the Government would hereby like to express – by a way of a unilateral declaration – its acknowledgement that in the special circumstances of the present case , the impugned proceedings did not fulfil the requirements of the applicant ’ s r ights under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 . Consequently, the Government is prepared to pay the global sum of EUR 2,500 to the applicant, Mr Blagoja Mitevski . In its view, this amount would constitute adequate redress and sufficient compensation for the violation of the Convention thus a reasonable sum as to quantum in the present case in the light of the Court ’ s case law. 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 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 . ”

21. By letter s of 7 and 21 August 2014 , the applicant indicated that he was not fully satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration on the ground s that there were other similar proceedings pending between him and the public company concerning the payment of rent for the apartment. He therefore invited the Court to examine the case on the merits. He set out his claim for pecuniary damage, costs and expenses in the amount of EUR 1,706. He also requested that non-pecuniary damage be awarded on an equitable basis .

22. Article 37 of the Convention provides that the Court 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”.

23. I n certain circumstances, the Court 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.

24. To this end, the Court will examine the declaration carefully in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment ( see 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).

25. The Court observes that the unilateral declaration contains a clear acknowledgment by the Government of a violation of the applicant ’ s rights protected under Article 6 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. It also contains an undertaking to pay him a total of EUR 2,500 in compensation for pecuniary and non ‑ pecuniary damage , costs and expenses .

26. Having regard to the nature of the admissions and assurances contained in the Government ’ s declaration and 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 ).

27. Lastly , 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 ( see Josipović v. Serbia ( dec. ), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).

28. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the application out of the list.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government ’ s declaration under Article 6 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 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 16 July 2015 .

Søren Nielsen Isabelle Berro Registrar President