FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 15370/05 by Blaga DZONOVA and Others against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 18 May 2010 as a Chamber composed of:

Peer Lorenzen , President, Renate Jaeger , Karel Jungwiert , Rait Maruste , Mark Villiger , Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska , Zdravka Kalaydjieva , judges , and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 14 April 2005 ,

Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 1 March 2010 requesting the Court to strike the length complaint out of the list of cases ,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicants, Ms Blaga Dzonova , Ms Stanka Dzonova and Ms Pavlina Atanasovska , are Macedonian nationals who were born in 1951 , 1949 and 1955, respectively , and live in Stip. They are represented before the Court by Ms S. Kaleska , a lawyer practising in Skopje . The Macedonian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr s R. Lazareska Gerovska . The case mainly concerned the length of civil proceedings in which the applicants claimed determination of a title to a property. The proceedings started in 1995 and ended on 15 October 2004 when the Stip Court of Appeal ' s decision of 7 September 2004 was served on the applicants.

COMPLAINT

The applicant s complained under Article 6 of the Convention that their case had not been heard within a reasonable time. Referring to the outcome of the proceedings they invoked Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that they had been deprived of their property.

THE LAW

1. The applicant s complained about the length of the civil proceedings under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. This provision provides as follows:

“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”

By letter dated 1 March 2010, the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by this part of the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.

The declaration provided , inter alia , 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, the length of the domestic proceedings did not fulfil the requirement of ”reasonable time” referred to in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. Consequently, the Government is prepared to pay to t he applicants the global sum of 2,100 euros ( two thousand and one hundred euros ). In its view, this amount woul d constitute adequate redress and sufficient compensation for the impugned length of the said proceedings, and 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 applicab le. This sum will be payable to the personal accounts of the applicant s within three months from the date of the notification of the 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”

In a letter received by the Court on 19 April 2010 the applicants stated that the sum mentioned in the Government ' s declaration was unacceptably low .

Having regard to the Court ' s practice in this field ( see Petkovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Mace don ia , no. 27314/04, 13 November 2008 and Ajvazi v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no. 30956/05, 13 November 2008 ) and to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government ' s declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed, which is compatible 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 this part of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine ). Accordingly, it should be struck out of the list.

2. The applicant s further complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that their property rights had been infringed.

The Court has examined the remainder of the complaint as submitted by the applicant s . However, having regard to all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that the applicant s have failed to substantiate their complaint . It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government ' s declaration in respect of the length-of-proceedings complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in so far as it relates to the above complaint in accordance with Artic le 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.

Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.

Claudia Westerdiek Peer Lorenzen Registrar President