THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 31506/17 Žaklina TOMIĆ

against Serbia

( see appended table)

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 16 May 2019 as a Committee composed of:

Dmitry Dedov , President, Alena Poláčková , Jolien Schukking , judges,

and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 19 April 2017,

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.

She was represented by Mr D. Avramov , a lawyer practising in Zrenjanin .

The applicant ’ s complaints under Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention regarding the placement of her child in emergency care were communicated to the Serbian Government (“the Government”) .

THE LAW

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 a breach of the applicant ’ s rights under Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention. They offered to pay the applicant the amount s 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 s 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 these amounts 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 a response from the applicant accepting the terms of the declaration.

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, Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75 ‑ 77, ECHR 2003-VI).

The Court has established clear and extensive case-law concerning complaints relating to this issue ( see, mutatis mutandis , K. and T. v. Finland [GC], no. 25702/94, ECHR 2001 ‑ VII, and K.A. v. Finland , no. 27751/95, 14 January 2003 ).

Noting the admissions contained in the Government ’ s declaration, the facts that the child has been returned to the applicant and that the Constitutional Court has acknowledged a breach of the applicant ’ s family rights, 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 6 June 2019 .

Liv Tigerstedt Dmitry Dedov Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

Application no. Date of introduction

Applicant ’ s name

Date of birth

Date of receipt of Government ’ s declaration

Date of receipt of applicant ’ s comments, if any

Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage

per applicant

(in euros) [1]

Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application

(in euros) [2]

31506/17

19/04/2017

Žaklina Tomić

25/06/1973

08/01/2019

-

2,000

less any amount which may have already been paid in that regard at the domestic level

500[1] . Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.

[2] . Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.