FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 42350/04 Kostadin TAÅ KOV and others against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 1 July 2014 as a Committee composed of:

Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos , President , Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska , Ksenija Turković , judges , and André Wampach , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 29 September 2004,

Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 22 June 2012 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicants ’ reply to that declaration,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. The applicants are Macedonian nationals and live in Skopje or Å tip . They were represented by Mr T. Torov, lawyer practicing in Å tip.

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

The applicants complained about the civil proceedings for determination of the title to plots of land. They relied on Articles 6 and 13 and Article 1 of Protocol No.1 of the Convention.

The part of the application concerning the length of proceedings under Articles 6 and 13 was communicated to the Government .

THE LAW

After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 22 June 2012 and the corrigendum of 31 August 2012 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue in respect of the length of the proceedings . They further requested the Court to strike the application out from its list of cases 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, [the length of the domestic proceedings] did not fulfil th e requirements of the applicant s ’ rig hts protected by Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Conve ntion. Consequently, the Government is prepared to pay the global sum of [as specified in the appendix below ] euros to [the applicant name]. In its view, this amount would constitute adequate redress and sufficient compensation f or the violation of Article 6 § 1 that the domestic proceedings lasted unreasonably long, 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 pe rsonal account of the applicant s 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 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[s] by virtue of that provision. Therefore, the Government invites the Court to strike the application out of its list of cases. ”

By a letter received by the Court on 10 August 2012 , the applicants indicated that they were not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration and requested the Court to continue with the examination of the case.

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 application” .

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 case to be continued.

To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration 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).

The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against the respondent State, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of Article 6 § 1 about one ’ s right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII; Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 69-98, ECHR 2006 ‑ V ; Majewski v. Poland , no. 52690/99, §§ 38-41, 11 October 2005; Wende and Kukówka v. Poland , no. 56026/00, §§ 63-65, 10 May 2007; Petkovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (dec.) no. 27314/04, 13 November 2008; Ajvazi v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (dec.) no. 30956/05, 13 November 2008).

Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government ’ s declaration, 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 this part of 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 this part of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine ).

The Court considers that these amounts should be converted into the national currency at the rate applicable at the date of payment and paid within three months from the date of notification of the Court ’ s decision issued in accordance with Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to settle within this period, simple interest shall be payable on the amounts 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 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 in the part concerning the complaint about the length of proceedings.

Relying on Article 6 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 the applicants also raised other complaints .

Having regard to all the evidence in its possession, and in so far as it has jurisdiction to examine the allegations, the Court has not found any appearance of a breach of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention or its Protocols.

It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government ’ s declaration under Article 6 and Article 13 of the Convention and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;

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

Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible .

             André Wampach Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos              Deputy Registrar President

Appe ndix

N o .

First name LAST NAME

Birth date

Amount awarded

Kostadin TAÅ KOV

17/12/1934

1,960 euros to each of these seven applicants

Mihajlo MIHAJLOV

14/01/1940

Dimko MIHAJLOV

13/02/1943

Janko MIHAJLOV

02/04/1946

Mite MIHAJLOV

07/09/1951

Kostadinka NAKOVA

08/11/1932

Olga POCEVSKA

23/01/1944

Kiraca TAÅ KOVA Å TERJOVA

12/11/1945

1,960 euros jointly to these four applicants

Lenče MIHAJLOVA

08/06/1960

Piha TAÅ KOVA Å TERJOVA

23/10/1957

Suzana MIHAJLOVA

28/05/1968