FIRST SECTION

DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 19664/08 by Jordan KOCEV against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

The European Court of Human Rights ( First Section ), sitting on 28 June 2011 as a Committee composed of:

Anatoly Kovler , President, George Nicolaou , Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska , judges , and André Wampach , Deputy Section Registra r ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 18 March 2008,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Jordan Kocev, is a Macedonian national who was born in 1951 and lives in Stip . He was represented before the Court by Mr T. Torov , a lawyer practising in Å tip . The Macedonian Governmen t (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs R. Lazareska Gerovska .

The case mainly concerned the length of civil proceedings concerning determination of a right of way; transfer of a plot of a land in the applicant ’ s actual possession and compensation claim . The proceedings began on 28 May 2001 and ended on 20 September 2007 (date of service).

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complained under Article 6 of th e Convention that his case had not been heard within a reasonable time. Relying on the same provision he further complained about judges ’ bias and insufficient reasons of domestic decisions. Moreover, he alleged lack of an effective remedy under Article 13 of the Convention in respect of the length of the proceedings. Finally, the applicant invoked Article 1 of Protocol No 1 of the Convention.

THE LAW

1. The applicant complained about the length of the civil proceedings under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. This provision provides as follows:

“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”

The applicant also complained under Article 13 of the Convention that he had no effective remedy whereby he could raise the issue of the excessive length of the proceedings. This provision provides as follows:

“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”

By letter dated 14 January 2011 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, the length of the domestic proceedings did not fulfil the requirement of ” reasonable time” referred to in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, as well as the right to an effective remedy referred to in Article 13 of the Convention. Consequently, the Government is prepared to pay to t he applicant Mr Jordan Kocev the global sum of 1,820 euros (one thousand, eight hundred and twenty euros ). In its view, this amount would constitute adequate redress and sufficient compensation for the impugned length of the said proceedings, 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 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 . ”

In a letter received by the Court on 1 March 2011 the applicant stated that he did not agree with the declaration since he had also lodged other complaints apart from the one about the length of the proceedings.

Having regard to the Court ’ s practice in this field ( see Petkovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Mace don ia , no. 27314/04, 13 November 2008 and Ajvazi v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no. 30956/05, 13 November 2008 ) and to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government ’ s declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed, which is compatible with the amounts awarded in similar cases, the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of this part 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 this part of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine ). Accordingly, it should be struck out of the list.

2 . The applicant further complained under Article 6 of the Convention about partiality of domestic judges and insufficient reasons of courts ’ decisions . Moreover , he invoked Article 1 of Protocol No 1 of the Convention.

The Court has examined the remainder of the complaints as submitted by the applicant. However, having regard to all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that the applicant has failed to substantiate his complaints. It follows that this part of the application 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 in respect of the length-of-proceedings complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and in respect of the right to an effective remedy under 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 Artic le 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention;

Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.

André Wampach Anatoly Kovler Deputy Registrar President