FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 3790/13 Vlado LAZAROVSKI against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 7 March 2017 as a Committee composed of:

Ledi Bianku, President , Armen Harutyunyan, Jovan Ilievski, judges,

and Renata Degener, Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 26 December 2012,

Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 7 July 2016 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicant ’ s reply to that declaration,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The applicant, Mr Vlado Lazarovski , is a Macedonian national, who was born in 1955 and lives in Gevgelija .

The Macedonian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr K. Bogdanov . The applicant complained under Article 14 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 of the Convention about proceedings in which his office of public prosecutor had been terminated.

The application had been communicated to the Government .

THE LAW

The applicant complained that he had not been acquainted with the reasons that had led to termination of his office and that he had not had an effective opportunity to put forward arguments in his favour. These complaints were communicated to the respondent Government under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 7 July 2016, the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.

The declaration 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, did not fulfil the requirements of the applicants ’ rights protected by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. Consequently, the Government is prepared to pay to the applicant Vlado Lazarovski a sum of 3,600 EUR (three thousand and six hundred euros). In its view, this amount would constitute adequate redress and sufficient compensation for the violation of Article 6 § 1. This sum is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses and will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. This sum will be payable to the personal account of the applicant within three months from the date of the notification of the Court decision pursuant to Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention ... 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 allow the Court to reach the conclusion that for ‘ any other reason ’ it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application. 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 by virtue of that provision. Therefore, the Government invites the Court to strike the application out of its list of cases. ”

By a letter of 15 August 2016 the applicant indicated that he was not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration on the ground that it had not stated whether his allegations had been well-founded. He further specified his claim for just satisfaction.

The Court re iterates 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 application”.

It also reiterates that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application 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.

To this end, the Court has examined the declaration 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).

Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government ’ s declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which the Court finds to be reasonable given the circumstances of this case – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c)). Moreover, 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 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).

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 under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and of the modalities 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 30 March 2017 .

             Renata Degener Ledi Bianku              Deputy Registrar President