Information Note on the Court’s case-law 201

November 2016

Anastasov and Others v. Slovenia (dec.) - 65020/13

Decision 18.10.2016 [Section IV]

Article 37

Article 37-1

Striking out applications

Complaint concerning adequacy of domestic compensation scheme set up for the “erased”: struck out; pilot judgment closed

Facts – In its pilot judgment in the case of Kurić and Others v. Slovenia ([GC], 26828/06, 26 June 2012, Information Note 153 ) , the Grand Chamber of the Court required Slovenia to set up an ad hoc compensation scheme for former nationals of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (“the SFRY”) whose names had been deleted from the Slovenian Register of Permanent Residents in breach of their rights under Articles 8, 13 and 14 of the Convention. In its just satisfaction judgment in the same case ( Kurić and Others v. Slovenia (just satisfaction) [GC], 26828/06, 12 March 2014, Information Note 172 ) , the Grand Chamber made a preliminary positive assessment of the ad hoc scheme that had in the meantime been implemented under the Act on Compensation for Damage to Persons Erased from the Register of Permanent Residents 2013 (“Erased” Compensation Act).

The 212 applicants in the instant case had been “erased” from the Register of Permanent Residents but their status had since been regularised through the acquisition of either a permanent residence permit or Slovenian citizenship. In their application to the European Court, they complained that their situation had remained unsettled for several years and that the Slovenian authorities had failed to grant them prompt and adequate financial redress for the damage they had sustained. None of the applicants appeared to have made use of the compensatory remedy provided for by the “Erased” Compensation Act.

Law – Article 37 § 1: The levels of financial compensation available under the domestic ad hoc compensation scheme (ranging between 20% and 60% of the Grand Chamber’s individual awards in the pilot case) did not appear to be unreasonable or disproportionate, considering the wide margin of appreciation afforded the State. Likewise, the payment intervals (amounts exceeding EUR 1,000 were payable over a maximum period of five years) did not appear unreasonable. Furthermore, the “Erased” Compensation Act provided for different forms of redress aimed at the reintegration of the “erased” into Slovenian society.

Having regard in particular to Resolution CM/ResDH(2016)112 , in which the Committee of Ministers had satisfied itself that all the measures required by Article 46 § 1 of the Convention had been adopted, the Court was satisfied that the “Erased” Compensation Act in principle constituted effective implementation of the requirement to set up an ad hoc domestic compensation scheme for the breaches of Articles 8, 13 and 14 of the Convention identified in the pilot case.

In these circumstances, the Court found that the matter giving rise to the instant and remaining applications against Slovenia lodged by the “erased” where the applicants had regularised their legal status had been resolved for the purposes of Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention and the continued examination of those cases was no longer justified (without prejudice, however, to the possibility to restore an application if the circumstances so justified). The Court accordingly closed the pilot judgment in respect of those Slovenian cases lodged by the “erased” where the applicants had regularised their legal status.

Conclusions : application struck out; pilot-judgment procedure closed.

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes