FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 50070/11 Liljana KOÄŒKOVSKA and others against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

The European Court of Human Rights ( First Section ), sitting on 6 May 2014 as a Committee composed of:

Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque , President, Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska , Linos -Alexandre Sicilianos , judges, and André Wampach , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 29 July 2011 ,

Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,

Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 25 July 2013 in respect of the third applicant requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases ,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix.

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

The applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention about civil proceedings for annulment of dismissal decisions.

On 27 June and 1 July 2013 the Court received friendly settlement declarations signed by the parties under which the applicants agreed to waive any further claims against the respondent State in respect of the facts giving rise to the application against an undertaking by the Government to pay to each of them 1,000 euros to cover any and all non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants. The sum will be converted into the local currency at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court to strike the case out of its list of cases . In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on it, from the expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.

By a letter of 4 July 2013 the third applicant informed the Court that his legal representative had accepted the friendly-settlement proposal without having consulted him. He appointed a new representative and refused the Registrar ’ s friendly-settlement proposal.

B y a letter of 25 July 2013 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the length issue raised by the application in respect of the third applicant . 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 rights protected by the Convention. Consequently, the Government is prepared to pay the global sum of 900 EUR to the third applicant Mr. Kiro Stavrev . In its view, this amount would constitute adequate redress and sufficient compensation f or the violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the domestic proceedings lasted unreasonably long, 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 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 17 September 2013, the third applicant indicated that he was not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration.

THE LAW

I. THE FIRST, SECOND, FOURTH, FIFTH, SIXTH, SEVENTH AND EIGHT APPLICANTS

The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the Government and the first, second, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth applicants . It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no reasons to justify a continued examination of the application in respect of these applicants . In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike th is part of the application out of the list.

II. THE THIRD APPLICANT

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 applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued.

To this end, the Court will examine carefully the unilateral declaration in respect of the third applicant 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 Petkovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no. 27314/04, 13 November 2008; Ajvazi v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no. 30956/05, 13 November 2008, 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, 11 October 2005; Wende and Kukówka v. Poland , no. 56026/00, 10 May 2007).

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 the length complaint (Article 37 § 1(c)) in respect of the third applicant.

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 length complaint (Article 37 § 1 in fine ) in respect of the third applicant.

The Court considers that the amount stated in the unilateral declaration should be converted into the national currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of payment and paid within three months from the date of notification of the Court ’ s decision is sued 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 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 the unilateral declaration, the application in respect of the third applicant 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 third applicant ’ s complaint about the length of proceedings.

Relying on Article 6 the third applicant 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

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 39 of the Convention , in respect of the first, second, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth applicants,

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

Decides to strike the part of the application in respect of the third applicant concerning the length of the proceedings under Article 6 out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention;

Declares the remainder of the third applicant ’ s complaints inadmissible .

André Wampach Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque              Deputy Registrar President

Appe ndix