Resolution CM/ ResDH (2011)81 [1]

Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

Dumanovski , Docevski & Blage Ilievski against “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia ”

(Application No. 13898/02, 66907/01 and 39538/03, judgments of 08/12/2005, final on 03/07/2006, of 01/03/2007, final on 01/06/2007 and of 25/06/2009, final on 25/09/2009)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);

Having regard to the judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee once they had become final;

Recalling that the violations of the Convention found by the Court in these cases concern the excessive length of proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before administrative bodies (violations of Article 6, paragraph 1) (see details in Appendix);

Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the mea s ures taken to comply with its obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Conve n tion to abide by the judgments;

Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee ’ s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;

Having satisfied itself that, within the time-limit set, the respondent state paid the a p plicant the just satisfaction provided only in the judgment in the case of Docevski (see details in Appendix),

Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded in the judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate, of

- individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum ; and

- general measures preventing similar violations;

DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix), that it has exe r cised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases and

DECIDES to close the exa mination of these cases.

Appendix to Resolution CM/ ResDH (2011)81

Information on the measures taken to comply with the judgments in the cases of

Dumanovski , Docevski & Blage Ilievski against “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia ”

Introductory case summary

These cases concern the excessive length of proceedings mainly before administrative bodies, such as the Kumanovo Employment Bureau and the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy, the Pension and Disability Insurance Fund and its Second-Instance Commission and the Government Appeal Commission, relating to various social security benefits du to the applicants. Each applicant instituted administrative proceedings on several occasions before the Supreme Court either as a result of the inactivity of these administrative bodies or to challenge their decisions. Proceedings lasted from 1995 to 2001 in the Dumanovski case, from 1996 to 2005 in the Docevski case and from 1996 to 2004 in the Blage Ilievski case.

The Court found that substantial delays were attributable to the authorities and caused mainly by the re-examination of the cases or inactivity of the administrative bodies. The Court in particular noted that special diligence was required where the applicant had lost his or her means of subsistence after being dismissed from employment (in the case of Dumanovski ) as well as in pension disputes (in the cases of Docevski and Blage Ilievski ) (violations of Article 6, paragraph 1).

I. Payments of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

Name and application number

Pecuniary damage

Non-pecuniary damage

Costs and expenses

Total

Dumanovski 13898/02

-

-

-

-

Docevski

66907/01

-

3600 EUR

600 EUR

4200 EUR

Paid on 31/08/2007

Blage Ilievski

39538/03

-

-

-

-

b) Individual measures

All domestic proceedings have been concluded. Consequently, no other individual measure was considered necessary by the Committee of Ministers.

II. General measures

The authorities of the respondent state have taken a number of measures to reduce the excessive length of proceedings before administrative bodies and domestic courts.

a) Legislative measures : In order to reduce the excessive length of administrative proceedings before the domestic courts the new Law on Courts and the new Law on General Administrative Procedure was adopted in 2006.

The new Law on Courts established a specialised Administrative Court as from December 2007. The Administrative Court now has jurisdiction to resolve administrative disputes which were previously decided by the Supreme Court.

According to the provisions of the new Law on General Administrative Procedure, the Administrative Court is now authorised to decide on the merits in certain cases following the annulment of an administrative decision. In this context, the law prevents multiple re-examination of cases such as the present ones and thus reduces the excessive length of administrative proceedings before domestic courts.

To prevent inactivity by administrative bodies in administrative proceedings, Amendments to the new Law on General Administrative Procedure were adopted in 2008. They introduced a number of novelties with a view to accelerating administrative proceedings.

In particular, any request made to the administration will be considered to have been accepted, if the administration fails to respond to that request within a certain deadline (the concept of “tacit authorisation”).

Deadlines in administrative proceedings have also been considerably shortened. The rules on serving documents have been simplified. The deadline for service of documents has been reduced from 15 to 7 days. Parties to administrative proceedings shall be served with any relevant document only once. In case of service by registered letter, if such letter is not received by the addressee, the post office will leave a notice on his or her residence door or in the registered address of the corporate addressee, as the case may be. By such a notice the addressee shall be invited to collect any documents within 7 days. Should the addressee fail to comply, it will be considered that the service has been duly performed. The service of documents in electronic form has also been introduced. Furthermore, the second-instance authority shall make a decision on the merits under certain circumstances, for example in situations when a matter had already been referred back once for re-examination to a first-instance authority.

Finally, pursuant to these amendments, the administrative authorities shall have an obligation to keep administrative statistics and to submit periodic reports to the Ministry of Justice in this respect.

b) Efficiency of the Administrative Court : As of September 2008, the Administrative Court had accepted 3751 new cases. Throughout this period the Administrative Court resolved in aggregate 3375 cases and managed to dispose of 70% of the incoming cases. In 2008, the number of judges at the Administrative Court has been raised from 19 to 26. In addition, the Administrative Court recruited a number of additional court clerks with a view to shortening the length of proceedings before that court.

c) Awareness-raising campaign : A number of events have been organised to inform the administrative authorities of the legislative amendments introduced. In October 2008 a wide media campaign was carried out to raise awareness of the amendments, including the rights of individuals in cases of excessive length of administrative proceedings.

d) Publication and dissemination : The Court ’ s judgments have been translated and published on the website of the Ministry of Justice ( w w w.pravda.gov.mk ). In the case of Dumanovski , the judgment was also forwarded to the Supreme Court.

III. Conclusions of the respondent state

The government considers that the measures adopted have fully remedied the consequences for the applicants of the violations of the Convention found by the European Court in this case, that these measures will prevent similar violations and that “ the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia ” has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

[1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 June 2011 at the 1115th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies