SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 28990/06 Vidosava POPOVIĆ against Serbia

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 9 July 2013 as a Committee composed of:

Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque , President, Dragoljub Popović , Helen Keller , judges, and Atilla Nalbant , Acting Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 17 July 2006,

Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 15 March 2011 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, Ms Vidosava Popović , is a Serbian national, who was born in 1940 and lives in Belgrade. She was represented before the Court by Mr V. Popović , a lawyer practising in Beograd.

The Serbian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr S. Carić .

The part of the application concerning the length of two separate sets of civil proceedings had been communicated to the Government .

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

1. The civil proceedings concerning patent infringement

On 21 April 1993 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against company X for infringement of her patent rights.

On 4 July 2003 the District Court ( Okružni sud ) in Belgrade ruled partly in favour of the applicant. On 17 November 2003 the District Court rectified the errors in its judgment of 4 July 2003.

On 8 December 2004 the Supreme Court ( Vrhovni sud ) stayed the appeal proceedings on the grounds that the insolvency proceedings had been initiated in respect of X.

On 19 December 2007 the Supreme Court continued the appeal proceedings, quashed the District Court ’ s judgment in part and remitted the case for reconsideration.

On 29 June 2009 the insolvency proceedings in respect of X were concluded and on 27 July 2010 X was erased from the Registry of Corporate Entities.

From the information available in the case file, it appears that the impugned civil proceedings are still pending before the District Court.

2. The civil proceedings concerning unjust enrichment

On 6 February 1991 D.L., a third private party, instituted civil proceedings against the applicant seeking compensation for unjust enrichment.

On 23 September 2002, after two remittals, the Municipal Court ( Drugi Opštinski sud ) in Belgrade ruled in the favour of the applicant.

On 25 March 2003 the District Court ( Okružni sud ) in Belgrade quashed the Municipal Court judgment in part and remitted the case for reconsideration.

From the information available in the case file, it appears that the impugned civil proceedings are still pending before the Municipal Court.

3. Other relevant facts

On 20 July 2002 the project documentation concerning an industrial applicability of the applicant ’ s invention was stolen from her flat. On 23 July 2003 the applicant filed with the police a criminal complaint against third private persons whom she suspected of having committed the robbery. On 20 July 2004 the applicant lodged the same criminal complaint with the Public Prosecutor.

On 25 October 2005 the applicant filed a request with the Security Intelligence Agency ( Bezbednosno informativna agencija ) seeking information as to whether she was subjected to covert surveillance measures in relation to the commission of the alleged robbery. On an unspecified date thereafter the Security Intelligence Agency informed the applicant that it had no competence to deal with the criminal investigation at issue.

During 2005 and 2006 the applicant filed numerous petitions with various authorities complaining about an allegedly ineffective investigation concerning her criminal complaint and about being denied access to information.

COMPLAINTS

Under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention the applicant complained primarily about the excessive length of the two sets of civil proceedings. Also under Article 6 § 1, the applicant, in substance, complained about the failure of the prosecuting authorities to bring criminal charges against third private parties. Finally, under various provisions of the Convention, the applicant complained about the breach of her right to respect for her private life by being subjected to covert surveillance measures, as well as about being denied access to information in that respect.

THE LAW

1. The applicant complained about the unreasonable length of the two separate sets of civil proceedings. She relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

After the failed attempt to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 4 March 2011 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by this part of 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:

“ I declare that the Government of the Republic of Serbia is ready to accept that there had been a violation of the applicant ’ s right under Article 6 paragraph 1 of the Convention and offer to pay to the applicant, Ms Vidosava Popović , the amount of EUR 3,100 (three thousand one hundred euros) to cover any and all non-pecuniary damage and EUR 600 (six hundred euros) to cover any and all costs and expenses plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant in respect of the application registered under no. 28990/06 before the European Court of Human Rights.

This sum shall be payable within three months from the date of delivery of the decision of the Court. This payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.

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

By letters of 26 April and 24 June 2011, the applicant indicated that she was not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration on the ground that they contained no admissions with regard to her complaints other than those concerning the length of the civil proceedings.

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 declaration 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 violation of one ’ s right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see, for example, 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; and Nemet v. Serbia , no. 22543/05 , §§ 17-18, 8 December 2009) .

Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government ’ s declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed, which can be considered reasonable in comparison with the Court ’ s awards in similar cases, when account is taken of the fact that over nine years of the two separate sets of civil proceedings fall within the Court ’ s competence ratione temporis (Serbia having ratified the Convention on 3 March 2004), the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the applicant ’ s complaint in this regard (Article 37 § 1(c)).

Turning to the nature of the proposed redress, the Court interprets the Government ’ s declaration as meaning that the compensation proposed is to be paid within three months from the date of notification of the Court ’ s decision issued in accordance with Article 37 § 1 of the Convention and that, 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.

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 ). Accordingly, this part of the application should be struck out of the list of cases.

It is to be noted that this decision is without prejudice to the merits of the applicant ’ s domestic claim or, indeed, her ability to obtain redress for any additional procedural delay which may occur after the date of the present decision.

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).

2. Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention the applicant, in substance, complained about the failure of the prosecuting authorities to bring criminal charges against third private parties whom she suspected of having stolen the said project documentation from her flat.

T he Court recalls that the Convention does not confer any right, as such, to have third parties prosecuted or sentenced for a criminal offence (see Perez v. France [GC], no. 47287/99, § 70, ECHR 2004 ‑ I). It follows that this complaint is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4.

3. Finally, under various provisions of the Convention, the applicant also complained that she was subjected to covert surveillance measures during 2002 in breach of her right to respect for her private life, and that she was denied access to information in that respect.

However, even assuming that the applicant has exhausted all the available effective domestic remedies in this regard, in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols.

It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) 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 § 1 of the Convention and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;

Decides to strike out of its list of cases the part of the application concerning the length of the civil proceedings, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.

Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.

Atilla Nalbant Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque Acting Deputy Registrar President