FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 1784/11 Amit AZIZI against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 20 October 2015 as a Committee composed of:

Elisabeth Steiner, President, Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, Erik Møse, judges, and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 23 December 2010,

Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 2 June 2014 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 Amit Azizi, is a Macedonian national, who was born in 1963 and lives in Ki č evo. He was represented before the Court by Mr A. Godžo and Mr D. Godž o, lawyers practising in Ohrid.

The Macedonian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr K. Bogdanov.

The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the fairness of the criminal proceedings against him.

The application had been communicated to the Government .

THE LAW

The applicant complained that, unlike the public prosecutor, he had not attended the session of the Court of Appeal and that the public prosecutor ’ s submissions before the Appeal and Supreme Courts had not been communicated to him. He relied on Article 6 of the Convention.

By a letter of 2 June 2014 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue 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 fulfill the requirements of the applicant ’ s rights protected by the Convention. Consequently, the Government is prepared to pay a sum of 1.900 EUR to Amit Azizi ("the applicant"). In its view, this amount would constitute adequate redress and sufficient compensation for the violation of the Convention, 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 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 /n 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 28 July 2014, the applicant welcomed the Government ’ s declaration and stated that besides the payment of an appropriate sum of money, there should be also an acknowledgment of the alleged violations.

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 re iterates 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 carefully in the light of the principles established in its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment ( Tahsin Acar v. Turkey [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; WAZA Spółka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.), no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.), no. 28953/03, 18 September 2007). Having due regard to the terms of the Government ’ s unilateral declaration in the present case, the Court observes that their declaration contains a sufficiently clear acknowledgment of a breach of Article 6 of the Convention in the criminal proceedings against the applicant.

The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , its practice concerning alleged violations complained of in the present case (see, for example, Atanasov v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no. 22745/06 , §§ 29-34, 17 February 2011; Naumoski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no. 25248/05 , §§ 25-29, 27 November 2012; Zahirović v. Croatia , no. 58590/11 , §§ 44-50, 25 April 2013 ).

Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government ’ s declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is not inconsistent 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)).

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 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 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 12 November 2015 .

André Wampach Elisabeth Steiner Deputy Registrar President