FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Applications nos . 14001/13 and 22883/14 Julijana JOVANOVSKA and O thers against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Marina CVETANOVSKA and O thers against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 14 November 2017 as a Committee composed of:

Aleš Pejchal, President, Krzysztof Wojtyczek, Jovan Ilievski, judges,

and Renata Degener, Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above applications lodged on 8 February 2013 and 11 March 2014 respectively,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

1 . A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. All applicants are Macedonian nationals who live in Veles. They are represented by Ms D. Č akarovska Grozdanovska, a lawyer practi s ing in Skopje.

The circumstances of the case

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

3 . In 1994 company B. launched civil proceedings for debt against company N. On 29 September 1998 and in the context of bankruptcy proceedings in respect of company B., former employees (“the claimants”) of another company that had gone bankrupt were authorised to take over part of B. ’ s claim against company N., which amounted to 1,466,143 Macedonian denars (MKD) (equ ivalent to approximately 24,000 euros (EUR)). That figure comprised salary arrears, unpaid social contributions and trial costs. Through submissions dated 8 June 1999, the claimants continued the proceedings in company B. ’ s stead. As stated later in the proceedings, there were 739 claimants, including the applicants. During the proceedings, the claimants asserted (but later retracted the calculation) that each individual claim amounted to MKD 1,960, (equivalent to approximately EUR 32), of which MKD 1,080 (approximately EUR 18) represented the actual salary arrears.

4 . After three remittals, on 14 April 2011 the Veles Court of First Instance terminated the proceedings as company N. h ad ceased to exist. On 19 April 2012 the Skopje Court of Appeal upheld this decision.

5 . Regarding application no. 14001/13, in decisions dated 26 June and 3 December 2012, both the first and second-instance panels of the Supreme Court accepted the applicants ’ request for a length-of-proceedings remedy and awarded them MKD 300,000 (approximately EUR 4,880) jointly in respect of non-pecuniary damage. Similarly, regarding application no. 22883/14, by decisions dated 7 May and 4 July 2013, two levels of the Supreme Court acknowledged that there had been a violation of the “reasonable time” requirement with respect to the applicants and awarded them MKD 20,000 (approximately EUR 320) jointly in respect of non ‑ pecuniary damage.

COMPLAINTS

6 . The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the inordinate length of the substantive proceedings and further alleged that the award made by the Supreme Court had been too low.

THE LAW

7 . The Court considers that, in accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the applications ‒ of which the subject matter is the alleged excessive length of the impugned proceedings ‒ should be joined, given their similar factual and legal background.

8 . It must determine whether the applicants ’ complaint meets the preliminary requirements set out in Article 35 § 3 (b) of the Convention, which reads as follows:

“3. The Court shall declare inadmissible any individual application submitted under Article 34 if it considers that:

...

(b) the applicant has not suffered a significant disadvantage, unless respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto requires an examination of the application on the merits and provided that no case may be rejected on this ground which has not been duly considered by a domestic tribunal.”

9 . The Court will therefore examine whether: (i) the applicants have suffered a significant disadvantage; (ii) whether respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols attached thereto requires an examination of the applications on the merits; and (iii) whether the case was duly considered by a domestic tribunal (see Hudecova and Others v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 53807/09, § 24, 18 December 2012).

10 . In this connection it notes that the “significant disadvantage” criterion applies where, notwithstanding a potential violation of a right from a purely legal point of view, the level of severity attained does not warrant consideration by an international court (see Adrian Mihai Ionescu v. Romania (dec), no. 36659/04, 1 June 2010; Korolev v. Russia (dec.), no. 25551/05, 1 July 2010; and Gaftoniuc v. Romania (dec.), no. 30934/05, 22 February 2011). The level of severity must be assessed in the light of the financial impact of the matter in dispute and the importance of the case for the applicant (see Burov v. Moldova (dec .), no. 38875/03, § 25, 14 June 2011).

11 . The present case concerns civil proceedings in which 739 claimants, including the applicants, requested payment of a debt amounting in total to MKD 1,466,143. Given the number of claimants, it appears that the sum in dispute for each individual applicant was MKD 1,980 (approximately EUR 32). Notwithstanding the financial situation of the applicants at the time, the Court does not consider that the sum each applicant claimed would have had a significant effect on their private life (see ibid. , § 27 and Spasi ć v. Serbia (dec.), no. 21477/13, 3 February 2015).

12 . The safeguard clause set out in Article 35 § 3 (b) compels the Court to examine the case in any event if respect for human rights so requires. This would apply where a case raises questions of a general character affecting the observance of the Convention, for instance whether there is a need to clarify the respondent State ’ s obligation under the Convention or to induce the respondent State to resolve a structural deficiency (see Zwinkels v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 16593/10, § 28, 9 October 2012).

13 . The Court observes that the problem of excessive length of proceedings in the respondent State has been addressed on numerous occasions in its judgments (see, among many other authorities, Dumanovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no. 13898/02, 8 December 2005; Nankov v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no. 26541/02, 29 November 2007; Savov and Others v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no.12582/03, 25 September 2008; and Rizova v. the former Yugo slav Republic of Macedonia, no. 41228/02 , 6 July 2006). Accordingly, the examination of the present applications on the merits would not bring any new element to the Court ’ s existing case-law.

14 . The Court therefore concludes that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require an examination of the applications on the merits.

15 . Finally, Article 35 § 3 (b) does not allow an application to be rejected on the grounds of “no significant disadvantage” if the case has not been duly considered by a domestic tribunal. The purpose of this provision is to ensure that every case is subject to a judicial examination, whether at national or European level (see Korolev , cited above).

16 . The Court notes that the Supreme Court examined the applicants ’ length of proceedings complaint, made final rulings in which it acknowledged that there had been a violation of the “reasonable time” requirement, and awarded just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. Accordingly, the Court is satisfied that the present applications were duly considered by a domestic tribunal within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (b) of the Convention.

17 . The three conditions of the inadmissibility criterion having therefore been satisfied, the Court finds that the applications must be declared inadmissible under Article 35 §§ 3 (b) and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Decides to join the applications;

Declares the applications inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 7 December 2017 .

             Renata Degener AleÅ¡ Pejchal              Deputy Registrar President

Appendix

Application no 14001/13

Application no 22883/14