Resolution CM/ ResDH (2008) 82 [1]

Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

Grozdanoski and Mitrevski against “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia ”

(Applications No. 21510/03 and 33046/02, judgments of 31/05/2007 and 21/06/2007, final on 31/08/2007 and 21/09/2007)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the P rotection 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 violation of the principle of equality of arms by the Supreme Court failure to give the applicant an opportunity to comment on the respondent ’ s appeal on points of law and the public prosecutor ’ s request for protection of legality; and the unfairness of proceedings due to the failure by a domestic court to notify the applicant of a change of venue of a hearing (violations of Article 6§1) (see details in Appendix);

Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with the obligation of “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention 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 applicants the just satisfaction provided in the judgments (see details in Appendix),

Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded by the Court in its 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

- of general measures, preventing similar violations;

DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix), that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and

DECIDES to close the examination of this case.

Appendix to Resolution CM/ ResDH (2008)82

Information about the measures taken to comply with the judgments in the cases of Grozdanoski and Mitrevski against “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia ”

Introductory summary of cases

The case of Grozdanoski concerns a violation of the applicant ’ s right to a fair trial in that, during civil proceedings, the applicant was not informed of the opposing party ’ s intention to appeal on points of law before the Supreme Court and of the public prosecutor ’ s request for protection of legality. The Court found that the applicant had no opportunity to comment on these appeals which amounted to a violation of the principle of equality of arms.

The case of Mitrevski concerns the unfairness of proceedings involving ownership of a plot of land and house in that in 2001 the applicant was unable to attend the last hearing before a decision was made in his case because he had not been notified of a change of venue of a hearing (violations of Article 6§1).

I. P ayment of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Just satisfaction

P ecuniary damage

Non-pecuniary damage

Costs and expenses

Total

-

1 500 EUR

-

1 500 EUR

P aid on 27/11/2007 (the case of Grozdanoski )

P ecuniary damage

Non-pecuniary damage

Costs and expenses

Total

-

-

248 EUR

248 EUR

P aid on 21/12/2007 (the case of Mitrevski )

b) Individual measures

In accordance with Article 400 of the Civil P rocedure Law, the applicants may request the reopening of these proceedings.

II. General measures

The authorities of the respondent state noted that the violations in the present cases resulted from isolated omissions rather than a deficiency in the system. Furthermore, they estimated that there was no need to change the Civil P rocedure Law since the statutory provisions are clear with regar d to the obligation of courts to notify parties to the proceedings on the application for review on points of laws and request for the protection of legality as well as on the venue of a hearing.

In any case, the Government Agent informed the Ministry of Justice, which is supervising the application of the Courts ’ Rules of P rocedure, of the violations found.

The European Court ’ s judgments have been translated and published on the website of the Ministry of Justice ( www.pravda.gov.mk ).

III. Conclusions of the respondent state

The government considers that the measures taken will prevent new, 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 October 2008 at the 1035th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies