SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 27875/16 Luiza CANEVA against North Macedonia and 25 other applications (see list appended)

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 11 April 2023 as a Committee composed of:

Lorraine Schembri Orland , President , Jovan Ilievski, Diana Sârcu , judges , and Dorothee von Arnim, 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 between 25 February and 8 June 2021 requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases and the applicants’ reply to those declarations,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

1. A list of the applicants, all Macedonians/citizens of the Republic of North Macedonia, is set out in the appendix. They are all represented by Ms D. Chakarovska-Grozdanovska, a lawyer practicing in Skopje. The applicant in applications nos. 53217/17 and 55495/17, Ms M. Anastasova, died in 2021. Her son, Mr I. Anastasovski, expressed the intention to pursue the applications and authorised Ms D. Chakarovska-Grozdanovska to represent him in the proceedings before the Court.

2. The respondent Government were represented by their Agent, Ms D. Djonova.

3. The applicants’ complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention concerning the payment of a standing heating charge for their flats was communicated to the Government of North Macedonia (“the Government”).

THE LAW

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

5. In accordance with its well-established case-law on the matter (see, inter alia , Trivkanović v. Croatia (no. 2) , no. 54916/16, §§ 44-47, 21 January 2021), the Court considers that the son of the applicant Ms M. Anastasova, a close family member, has standing to pursue the proceedings in that applicant’s stead.

6. After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by letters submitted between 25 February and 8 June 2021 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the applications. They further requested the Court to strike out the applications in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.

7. The unilateral declarations provided as follows:

“... the Government would hereby like to express – by a way of unilateral declaration – its acknowledgement that the impugned proceedings did not fulfil the requirements of the applicant’s rights protected by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention...

This sum is to cover any and all non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant. This sum will be converted into national currency at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court decision pursuant to Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention...

...According to the case-law of the Court, it may be appropriate under certain circumstances to strike out an application under Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention on the basis of a unilateral declaration filed by the respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued.

... In the light of the above and in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention, the Government, having in mind the terms of this declaration, 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 applications.

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(s) out of its list of cases.”

The amounts proposed in the unilateral declarations, submitted for each applicant individually, are set out in the appendix.

8. By letters of 25 April, 3 June and 18 June 2021, the applicants, through their legal representative, indicated that they were not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration on the ground that, in accordance with the relevant domestic law applicable at the time, a strike-out decision of the Court would prevent them from seeking the reopening of the domestic proceedings against them. They also claimed that the sum offered by the Government did not in itself constitute an adequate redress for the violation complained of.

9 . By a subsequent letter of 3 November 2022, the applicants’ legal representative informed the Court that due to the revocation of the operating licence of the private heating company, the applicants no longer considered that reopening of the civil proceedings would serve the purpose of obtaining any redress at domestic level.

10. The Court reiterates that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified, under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. Article 37 § 1 (c) enables the Court in particular 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 applications”.

11. It also reiterates that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an 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.

12. To this end, the Court has to examine the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment ( Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; WAZA Sp. z o.o. v. Poland (dec.), no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.), no. 28953/03, 18 September 2007).

13. It further reiterates that in a number of cases in which the possibility to request reopening of domestic proceedings would have constituted an appropriate form of redress, it has refused to accept unilateral declarations if the right to apply for reopening of domestic proceedings following the Court’s decision to strike out a case on that basis was not guaranteed to an applicant in domestic law as it would be for an applicant in respect of whom the Court delivered a judgment (see Šarić and Others v. Croatia , nos. 38767/07 and 22 others, §§ 26-29, 18 October 2011, and Aviakompaniya A.T.I., ZAT v. Ukraine , no. 1006/07, §§ 33-34, 5 October 2017 with further references).

14. The Court has established clear case-law concerning complaints relating to the interference with the right to property, in particular in cases brought against North Macedonia similar to the present applications (see Strezovski and Others v. North Macedonia , nos. 14460/16 and 7 others, 27 February 2020).

15. Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration, the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – as well as the applicants’ submissions of 3 November 2022, in which they considered that reopening of the civil proceedings would no longer serve the purpose of obtaining any redress at domestic level (see paragraph 9 above), the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the applications (Article 37 § 1 (c)).

16. 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 the applications (Article 37 § 1 in fine ).

17. The Court considers that the amounts awarded in the unilateral declaration should be converted into the national currency at the rate applicable at the date of payment, and paid within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision issued in accordance with Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to settle within this period, simple interest shall be payable on the amounts in question at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank plus three percentage points.

18. Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the applications could be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention ( 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 declaration and of the modalities 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 11 May 2023.

{signature_p_2}

Dorothee von Arnim Lorraine Schembri Orland Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of cases:

No.

Application no.

Case name

Lodged on

Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence

Represented by

Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant/household (in euros) [1]

1.

27875/16

Caneva v. North Macedonia

09/05/2016

Luiza CANEVA 1965 Skopje

Danche CHAKAROVSKA-GROZDANOVSKA

1,035

2.

41424/16

Veleski v. North Macedonia

14/07/2016

Blagoja VELESKI 1951 Skopje

855

3.

41444/16

Anastasovski v. North Macedonia

14/07/2016

Aco ANASTASOVSKI 1949 Skopje

855

4.

43410/16

Anastasovski v. North Macedonia

14/07/2016

Aco ANASTASOVSKI 1949 Skopje

855

5.

54523/16

Veleski v. North Macedonia

07/09/2016

Blagoja VELESKI 1951 Skopje

855

6.

54525/16

Veleski v. North Macedonia

07/09/2016

Blagoja VELESKI 1951 Skopje

855

7.

76320/16

Nenov v. North Macedonia

02/12/2016

Marjan NENOV 1976 Skopje

855

8.

76341/16

Mihajlovska v. North Macedonia

02/12/2016

Aleksandra MIHAJLOVSKA 1977 Skopje

990

9.

76354/16

Naumov v. North Macedonia

02/12/2016

Sande NAUMOV 1961 Skopje

855

10.

77254/16

Naumov v. North Macedonia

02/12/2016

Sande NAUMOV 1961 Skopje

855

11.

16068/17

Nenov v. North Macedonia

21/02/2017

Marjan NENOV 1976 Skopje

855

12.

16069/17

Nenov v. North Macedonia

21/02/2017

Marjan NENOV 1976 Skopje

855

13.

16070/17

Anastasovski v. North Macedonia

21/02/2017

Aco ANASTASOVSKI 1949 Skopje

855

14.

16288/17

Misovski v. North Macedonia

21/02/2017

Zoran MISOVSKI 1953 Skopje

810

15.

16289/17

Misovski v. North Macedonia

21/02/2017

Zoran MISOVSKI 1953 Skopje

810

16.

53090/17

Dameska v. North Macedonia

21/07/2017

Jadranka DAMESKA 1958 Skopje

990

17.

53217/17

Anastasovski and Anastasova v. North Macedonia

21/07/2017

Marija ANASTASOVA Born:1941

Deceased: 2021

Skopje Heir : Igor ANASTASOVSKI 1967 Skopje

810

18.

55495/17

Anastasovski and Anastasova v. North Macedonia

21/07/2017

Marija ANASTASOVA Born:1941

Deceased: 2021

Skopje Heir : Igor ANASTASOVSKI 1967 Skopje

810

19.

12477/18

Trajkovski v. North Macedonia

06/03/2018

Radojko TRAJKOVSKI 1945 Skopje

675

20.

13560/18

Nenov v. North Macedonia

14/03/2018

Marjan NENOV 1976 Skopje

855

21.

31263/18

Naumov v. North Macedonia

26/06/2018

Sande NAUMOV 1961 Skopje

855

22.

31268/18

Naumov v. North Macedonia

26/06/2018

Sande NAUMOV 1961 Skopje

855

23.

38108/18

Trajkovski v. North Macedonia

06/08/2018

Radojko TRAJKOVSKI 1945 Skopje

675

24.

57165/18

Nenov v. North Macedonia

27/11/2018

Marjan NENOV 1976 Skopje

855

25.

25883/19

Trajkovski v. North Macedonia

09/05/2019

Radojko TRAJKOVSKI 1945 Skopje

675

26.

43850/20

Nenov v. North Macedonia

21/09/2020

Marjan NENOV 1976 Skopje

720[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants