BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
European Court of Human Rights |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Aleksandar STOJKOV and Vangja STOJKOVA v the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia - 8589/07 [2010] ECHR 278 (9 February 2010) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/278.html Cite as: [2010] ECHR 278 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
8589/07
by Aleksandar STOJKOV and Vangja STOJKOVA
against the
former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 9 February 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Peer
Lorenzen,
President,
Renate
Jaeger,
Karel
Jungwiert,
Rait
Maruste,
Mark
Villiger,
Isabelle
Berro-Lefèvre,
Mirjana
Lazarova Trajkovska,
judges,
and
Claudia Westerdiek, Section
Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 7 February 2007,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 15 October 2009 requesting the Court to strike the length complaint out of the list of cases and the applicants' reply to that declaration,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants, Mr Aleksandar Stojkov and Mrs Vangja Stojkova, are Macedonian nationals who were born in 1937 and 1941 respectively and live in Strumica. The Macedonian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs R. Lazareska Gerovska. The case mainly concerned the length of civil proceedings for determination of title over property. The proceedings started on 4 February 2000 and ended on 3 January 2007 when the Štip Court of Appeal's decision of 13 December 2006 was served on the applicants.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention that their case had not been heard within a reasonable time. They further alleged bias of national judges. The applicants complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention that they had been deprived of their property.
LAW
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
By letter dated 15 October 2009, the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by this part of the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
The declaration provided, inter alia, as follows:
“... the Government would hereby like to express – by a way of unilateral declaration – its acknowledgement that in the special circumstances of the present case, the length of the domestic proceedings did not fulfil the requirement of ”reasonable time” referred to in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. Consequently, the Government is prepared to pay jointly to the two applicants the global sum of 1,890 euros (one thousand eight hundred and ninety euros). In its view, this amount would constitute adequate redress and sufficient compensation for the impugned length of the said proceedings, and thus a reasonable sum as to quantum in the present case in the light of the Court's case law. This sum is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as the costs and expenses and will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. This sum will be payable to an account named by the applicants within three months from the date of the notification of the decision pursuant to Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention ... In the light of the above and in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention the Government 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 application. 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 out of its list of cases”
In a letter received by the Court on 25 November 2009 the applicants stated that the sum mentioned in the Government's declaration was unacceptably low.
Having regard to the Court's practice in this field (see Petkovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 27314/04, 13 November 2008 and Ajvazi v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 30956/05, 13 November 2008) and to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government's declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed, which is compatible with the amounts awarded in similar cases, the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1(c)).
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 this part of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine). Accordingly, it should be struck out of the list.
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention that their property rights had been infringed.
The Court has examined the remainder of the complaints as submitted by the applicants. However, having regard to all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that the applicants have failed to substantiate their complaints. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government's declaration in respect of the length-of-proceedings complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in so far as it relates to the above complaint in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Claudia Westerdiek Peer Lorenzen
Registrar President