FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 27243/04 by Ljupco DIMITROVSKI against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 11 March 2008 as a Chamber composed of:

Peer Lorenzen , President, Snejana Botoucharova , Karel Jungwiert , Volodymyr Butkevych , Rait Maruste , Mark Villiger , Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska , judges, and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 9 July 2004,

Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together,

Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a f riendly settlement of the case,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant , Mr Ljupco Dimitrovski, is a Macedonian national who was born in 1952 and lives in Bitola . He was represented before the Court by Mr S. Kostov, a lawyer practising in Skopje . The Macedonian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr s R. Lazareska Gerovska .

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

The applicant worked in a public undertaking (“the employer”) until 25 July 1994 when he was laid off because he had allegedly failed to justify a three-day absence from work.

On 23 August 1994 the applicant brought a civil action against the employer requesting annulment of the dismissal decision and his reinstatement to a post corresponding to his qualifications.

On 30 March 1999 the Bitola Court of First Instance upheld the applicant ’ s claims.

On 25 May 1999 the Bitola Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance court ’ s decision on the merits and quashed it in respect of the legal costs.

On 26 September 2001 the Supreme Court upheld the employer ’ s appeal on points of law ( ревизија ) , set aside the lower courts ’ decisions and remitted the case for a fresh consideration.

On 6 December 2002 the Bitola Court of First Instance annulled the dismissal decision of 25 July 1994. This decision was upheld by the Bitola Court of Appeal and by the Supreme Court by decisions of 10 February 2003 and 25 February 2004, respectively.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complain ed under Article 6 of the Convention that his case was not heard within a reasonable time.

THE LAW

On 19 November 2007 the Court received the following declaration from the Government:

“ I, Radica Lazareska Gerovska , Agent of the Government , declare that the Government of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia offer to pay e x gratia 2,200 euros to Mr Ljupč o Dimitrovski with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.

This sum, which is to cover any non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be converted into Macedonian Denars at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and free of a ny taxes that may be applicable . It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it, 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. ”

T he declaration signed and submitted to the Court by the applicant , read, inter alia , as follows:

“ I, Ljupčo Dimitrovski , applicant , note that the Government of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia are prepared to pay me ex gratia the sum of 2,200 euros with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights ... I accept the proposal and waive any further claims against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in respect of the facts giving rise to this application. I declare that this constitutes a final resolution of the case. ”

The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no public policy reasons to justify a continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). In view of the above, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 and to strike the case out of the list.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.

             Claudia Westerdiek Peer Lorenzen Registrar President