THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 62004/10 Goran ĐORĐEVIĆ against Serbia and 3 other applications (see list appended)

The European Court of Human Rights ( Third Section ), sitting on 2 September 2014 as a committee composed of:

Ján Šikuta , President, Dragoljub Popović , Iulia Antoanella Motoc , judges, and Marialena Tsirli , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above applications lodged on 29 September 2010 ,

Having regard to the declaration s submitted by the respondent Government on 12 November 2013 requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases and the applicants ’ reply to those declarations ,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The Serbian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent Ms V. Rodić.

T he applicants obtained final court decision s ordering the same socially/State-owned company to pay them certain sums. The essential information as to the domestic proceedings in respect of each application is indicated in the appended table.

Relying on Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention the applicants complained about the failure by the national authorities to enforce final court decisions rendered in their favour.

The applications had been communicated to the Government .

THE LAW

The Court considers that, in accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the applications should be joined, given their similar factual and legal background.

After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 1 2 November 201 3 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make unilateral declarations with a view to resolving the issue raised by the applications. They further requested the Court to strike out the applications in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.

The declaration in respect to each application provided as follows:

“ ... the Government of the R epublic of Serbia is ready to accept that there had been a violation of the applicant ’ s right under Article 6 (1) of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and offer to pay to the applicant, [the applicant ’ s name] , the amount of EUR 1,800 ...

This sum, which is to cover any non-pecuniary damage as well as the costs and expenses, shall be paid in dinar counter-value , free of any taxes that may be applicable .

..further ... within three-month period the Government offer to pay to the applicant, the sums awarded in the domestic decision s under consideration in this case, less any amounts which may have already been paid on the basis of the said decision s .

These sums shall be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court ’ s decision. These payments will constitute the final resolution of the case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.

The Government regret the occurrence of the actions which have led to the bringing of the present application. ”

By a letter of 18 February 2014, the applicants indicated that they were not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declarations.

The Court recalls 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 applications”.

It also recalls 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 applicants wish the examination of the cases to be continued.

To this end, the Court will examine carefully the Government ’ s declarations in the light of the principles emerging from 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).

The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Serbia, its practice concerning complaints about the non-enforcement of final domestic decision rendered against socially/State–owned companies (see, for example, R. Kačapor and Others v. Serbia , nos. 2269/06, 3041/06, 3042/06, 3043/06, 3045/06 and 3046/ 06, 15 January 2008 ; Crnišanin and Others v. Serbia , nos. 35835/05, 43548/05, 43569/05 and 36986/06, 13 January 2009; Rašković and Milunović v. Serbia , nos. 1789/07 and 28058/07, 31 May 2011; Milunović and Čekrlić v. Serbia (dec.), nos. 3716/09 and 38051/09, 17 May 2011; and Stošić v. Serbia , no. 64931/1, 1 October 2013).

Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government ’ s declarations, as well as the amount of compensation proposed, the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the applications (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 s (Article 37 § 1 in fine ).

Further, the Court interprets the Government ’ s declaration s as meaning that in the event of failure to settle within the three-month period indicated in that declaration, simple interest shall be payable on the amount in question at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank plus three percentage points.

Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declarations, the applications 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 s out of the list .

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Decides to join the applications;

Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government ’ s declaration s under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;

Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.

Marialena Tsirli Ján Å ikuta              Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

No.

Application

no. and date of introduction

Applicant name

date of birth

place of residence

nationality

Final domestic decision details

Enforcement order details

62004/10

29/09/2010

Goran ĐORĐEVIĆ

13/01/1967

Leskovac

Serbian

Municipal Court in Leskovac

P1. 1414/06, P1. 670/07, P1. 2813/07, P1. 2814/07, P1. 3305/07 of 18 April 2008

Leskovac Court of First Instance

27/11/2009

2I. 701/10 of 15/06/2010

62935/10

29/09/2010

Dikica PETKOVIĆ

29/01/1950

Leskovac

Serbian

Municipal Court in Leskovac

P1. 1414/06, P1. 670/07, P1. 2813/07, P1. 2814/07, P1. 3305/07 of 18 April 2008

Municipal Court in Leskovac

4/12/2008

I. 2010/09 of 12/10/2009

62968/10

29/09/2010

Ljiljana RANĐELOVIĆ

04/02/1963

Leskovac

Serbian

Municipal Court in Leskovac

P1. 1414/06, P1. 670/07, P1. 2813/07, P1. 2814/07, P1. 3305/07 of 18 April 2008

Municipal Court in Leskovac

16 December 2008

The domestic court failed to issue the enforcement order.

In May 2011, the applicant requested enforcement in the insolvency proceedings.

63355/10

29/09/2010

Slađana STOJANOVIĆ

21/05/1964

Leskovac

Serbian

Municipal Court in Leskovac

P1. 1414/06, P1. 670/07, P1. 2813/07, P1. 2814/07, P1. 3305/07 of 18 April 2008

Leskovac Court of First Instance

27/11/2009

2I. 696/10 of 15/06/2010