SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 20630/20 Despot ANTOVSKI and Others against North Macedonia

(see appended table)

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 1 February 2024 as a Committee composed of:

Frédéric Krenc , President , Diana Sârcu, Davor Derenčinović , judges ,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 20 May 2020,

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

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

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

The applicants were represented by Mr H. Beadini, a lawyer practising in Tetovo.

The applicants’ complaint under Article 6 of the Convention concerning the lengthy non-enforcement was communicated to the Government of North Macedonia (“the Government”).

THE LAW

After the failure of the attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 17 May 2023 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by this complaint. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.

The Government acknowledged that the impugned proceedings did not fulfil the requirements of the applicants’ right protected by Article 6 of the Convention with respect to the length of the enforcement of the final decision. They offered to pay the applicants the amounts detailed in the appended table and invited the Court to strike the application 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 case.

The applicants were sent the terms of the Government’s unilateral declaration. By a letter received on 7 July 2023, the applicants indicated that they were not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration in that the amount proposed by the Government was 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 case 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 and extensive case-law concerning complaints relating to the length of enforcement (see, for example, Burdov v. Russia (no. 2) , no. 33509/04, §§ 65 et seq., ECHR 2009; Krsto Nikolov v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no. 13904/02, §§ 20-28, 23 October 2008; see also, in respect of the applicants’ victim status, Adži ‑ Spirkoska and Others v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (dec.), nos. 38914/05 and 17879/05, 3 November 2011, and Petrović v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no. 30721/15, §§ 20-21, 22 June 2017).

Noting the admissions contained in the Government’s unilateral declaration of 17 May 2023, the amounts of compensation proposed, which are consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases, as well as the absence of any relevant details in the applicants’ submission regarding the unreasonableness of the redress offered by the Government – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c)) (see most recently, mutatis mutandis, Tehno ‑ Intereksport Dushko Dooel v. North Macedonia (dec.) [Committee], nos. 22078/17 and 22530/17, 9 September 2021).

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 application (Article 37 § 1 in fine ).

Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application 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 case out of the list.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.

Done in English and notified in writing on 22 February 2024.

Viktoriya Maradudina Frédéric Krenc Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

Application raising complaints under Article 6 of the Convention

(lengthy non-enforcement of a final domestic decision against a private party)

Application no. Date of introduction

Applicant’s name

Year of birth

Date of receipt of Government’s declaration

Date of receipt of applicant’s comments

Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage

per household

(in euros) [1]

20630/20

20/05/2020

(6 applicants)

Household

Despot ANTOVSKI

1952

Dushko ANTOVSKI

1983

Ankica ANTOVSKA

1978

Household

Lina TANEVSKA

1940

Danijela TANEVSKA

1968

Nebojsha TANEVSKI

1966

17/05/2023

07/07/2023

2,745

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