SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 6072/17 Miodrag ILIĆ against Serbia

(s ee appended table)

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 8 April 2021 as a Committee composed of:

Carlo Ranzoni , President, Branko Lubarda , Pauliine Koskelo , judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 9 December 2016,

Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The applicant ’ s details are set out in the appended table.

The applicant ’ s complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 concerning the delayed enforcement of a domestic decision given against a socially/State-owned company were communicated to the Serbian Government (“the Government”) .

THE LAW

After unsuccessful friendly-settlement negotiations, the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by these complaints. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.

The Government acknowledged the delayed enforcement of a domestic decision given against a socially/State-owned company . They offered to pay the applicant the amount detailed in the appended table and invited the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. The amount would be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court ’ s decision. In the event of failure to pay this amount within the above-mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on it, from the 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.

The applicant was sent the terms of the Government ’ s unilateral declaration several weeks before the date of this decision. The Court has not received any response from the applicant.

The Court observes that Article 37 § 1 (c) enables it 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”.

Thus, it may strike out applications 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 (see, in particular, the Tahsin Acar v. Turkey judgment (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75 ‑ 77, ECHR 2003-VI).

The Court has established clear and extensive case-law concerning complaints relating to the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions given against socially/State-owned companies (see, for example, R. Kačapor and Others v. Serbia, nos. 2269/06 and 5 others, 15 January 2008).

Noting the admissions contained in the Government ’ s declaration, the fact that the relevant domestic decision has been enforced, 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)).

In the light of the above considerations, 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 may 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).

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 and of the arrangements 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 29 April 2021 .

             {signature_p_2}

Viktoriya Maradudina Carlo Ranzoni Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

Application raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

( delayed enforcement of domestic decisions given against socially/State-owned companies )

Application no. Date of introduction

Applicant ’ s name

Year of birth

Date of receipt of Government ’ s declaration

Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage

per applicant

(in euros) [1] [2]

6072/17

09/12/2016

Miodrag ILIĆ

1942

11/01/2021

900[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant

[2] Less any amounts which may have already been paid in that regard at the domestic level.