FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Applications nos. 17607/15 and 32576/15 Vladimir MILCHIN against North Macedonia and Kiril PSALTIROV against North Macedonia

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 16 September 2021 as a Committee composed of:

Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, President, Jovan Ilievski, Arnfinn Bårdsen, judges,

and Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above applications lodged on 7 April and 29 June 2015 respectively,

Having regard to the declarations submitted by the respondent Government of North Macedonia (“the Government”) requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases and the applicants’ reply to those declarations,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

1. The applicants’ details are set in the appended table. The applicant in the second case, Mr Kiril Psaltirov, died in May 2021. His son, Mr Ilija Psaltirov, expressed intention to pursue the application and authorised Mr Zhivkovski to represent him in the proceedings before the Court.

2. The Government were represented by their Agent, Ms D. Djonova.

3. The applicants complained under Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention alleging number of violations in respect of the lustration proceedings against them.

4. The applications had been communicated to the Government .

THE LAW

5. The Court considers that Mr Ilija Psaltirov (see paragraph 1 above) has the requisite standing to pursue the application on behalf of his late father (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, §§ 97 and 100, ECHR 2014).

6. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.

7. After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by letters of 11 August 2018 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the applications. They further requested the Court to strike out the applications in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.

8. The declarations 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(s), did not fulfil the requirements of the applicants’ rights protected by Article 6 § 1 and Article 8 of the Convention.

Consequently, the Government is prepared to pay to (each) applicant [names of both applicants] a sum of 5,850 EUR (five thousand eight hundred fifty euros). In its view, this amount would constitute adequate redress and sufficient compensation for the violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 8 of the Convention in relation to his right to a fair trial and his right to respect for his private life 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 applicable. This sum will be payable to the personal account of (each) applicant within three months from the date of the notification of the Court decision...

... 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(s) allow the Court to reach the conclusion that for ‘any other reason’ it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application(s). 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(s) by virtue of that provision. Therefore, the Government invites the Court to strike the application(s) out of its list of cases.”

9. By letters of 18 and 26 July 2018, the applicants indicated that they were not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declarations on the ground that, in accordance with the relevant domestic law valid at the time, a striking out decision of the Court would prevent them from being able to seek the reopening of the proceedings against them. The applicant in the second case also deemed the sum offered by the Government to be unacceptably low.

10. 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 applications”.

11. It also reiterates that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an applications under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicants wish the examination of the cases to be continued.

12. To this end, the Court has examined the declarations 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).

14. Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declarations, as well as the above legislative amendment and the amount of compensation proposed to be paid to each applicant– 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 applications (Article 37 § 1 (c)).

15. 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 applications (Article 37 § 1 in fine ).

17. Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declarations, the applications 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).

18. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases out of the list.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares that Mr Kiril Psaltirov’s son, namely Mr Ilija Psaltirov, has standing to continue the application in his late father’s stead;

Decides to join the applications;

Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration under Articles 6 § 1 and 8 of the Convention and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;

Decides to strike the applications 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 October 2021.

Martina Keller Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

No.

Application no.

Case name

Lodged on

Applicant Year of Birth/Demise Place of Residence Nationality

Represented by

1.

17607/15

Milchin v. North Macedonia

07/04/2015

Vladimir MILCHIN 1947 Skopje Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia

Ljubomir MIHAJLOVSKI

2.

32576/15

Psaltirov v. North Macedonia

29/06/2015

Kiril PSALTIROV Born:1941

Deceased: 2021

Skopje Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia

Succeeded by

Ilija PSALTIROV

Misho ZHIVKOVSKI