FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 63770/16 Enver ISENI against North Macedonia and 2 other applications

(see appended table)

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 10 November 2021 as a Committee composed of:

Lətif Hüseynov, President, Lado Chanturia, Arnfinn Bårdsen, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table,

Having regard to the declarations submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The list of applications is set out in the appended table.

The applicant was represented by A. Varela, a lawyer practising in Skopje.

The applicant’s complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention concerning the payment of a standing heating charge for his flat was communicated to the Government of North Macedonia (“the Government”).

THE LAW

Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.

After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make unilateral declarations with a view to resolving the issues raised by the applications. They further requested the Court to strike out the applications in accordance

with Article 37 of the Convention.

They offered to pay the applicant the amounts detailed in the appended table and invited the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. The amounts would be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision. In the event of failure to pay these amounts within the above-mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on them, 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 cases.

The applicant was sent the terms of the Government’s unilateral declarations several weeks before the date of this decision. By letters received on 9 August 2021, the applicant indicated that he was not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declarations. He stated that the amounts proposed by the Government were insufficient.

The Court observes that Article 37 § 1 (c) enables it 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”.

Thus, it may strike out applications 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 (see, in particular, the Tahsin Acar v. Turkey judgment (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75 ‑ 77, ECHR 2003-VI).

The Court has established clear case-law concerning complaints relating to the interference with the right of property (see Strezovski and Others v. North Macedonia , nos. 14460/16 and 7 others, 27 February 2020).

Noting the admissions contained in the Government’s declarations 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 applications (Article 37 § 1 (c)).

In the light of the above considerations, 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 applications (Article 37 § 1 in fine ).

Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declarations, the applications may be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention (see Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).

In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases 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 declarations and of the arrangements 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.

Done in English and notified in writing on 2 December 2021.

Viktoriya Maradudina Lətif Hüseynov Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention

(Interference with the right of property)

No.

Application no. Date of introduction

Applicant’s name

Year of birth

Representative’s name and location

Date of receipt of Government’s declaration

Date of receipt of applicant’s comments

Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses

per application

(in euros) [1]

63770/16

21/10/2016

Enver ISENI

1958Aleksandar

Varela

Skopje

02/07/2021

09/08/2021

810

34451/17

08/05/2017

02/07/2021

09/08/2021

810

34500/19

24/06/2019

02/07/2021

09/08/2021

810[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.