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 >> Todor HRISTOV v the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia - 6227/08 [2011] ECHR 961 (31 May 2011) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/961.html Cite as: [2011] ECHR 961 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FIRST SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no.
6227/08
by Todor HRISTOV
against the former Yugoslav Republic
of Macedonia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 31 May 2011 as a Committee composed of:
Peer Lorenzen, President,
Elisabeth
Steiner,
Julia Laffranque,
and
André Wampach, Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 21 January 2008,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 13 January 2011 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicant’s reply to that declaration,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The application was lodged by Mr Todor Hristov, a Macedonian national who was born in 1963 and lives in Strumica. He was represented before the Court by Mr A. Tumanovski, a lawyer practising in Skopje. The Macedonian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs R. Lazareska Gerovska.
The case mainly concerned the length of criminal proceedings in which the applicant was charged with bribes. The proceedings began on 20 May 1997 and ended on 15 September 2007 (date of service).
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention alleging inhuman and degrading treatment during the investigation and the court proceedings. He further complained under Article 5 of the Convention about the lawfulness of his pre-trial detention. The applicant also complained under Article 6 of the Convention that his case had not been heard within a reasonable time and alleged judges’ bias. Invoking Article 8 of the Convention the applicant contended that the domestic authorities had violated his right to private and family life, inter alia, by the inordinate length of the proceedings. The applicant lastly complained under Article 13 of the Convention about the outcome of the proceedings and alleged lack of an effective remedy in respect of the length of the proceedings.
THE LAW
“In the determination of... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
The applicant also submitted under Article 13 of the Convention that he had no effective remedy whereby he could raise the issue of the excessive length of the proceedings. This provision provides as follows:
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”
By letter dated 13 January 2011 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by 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, as well as the right to an effective remedy referred to in Article 13 of the Convention. Consequently, the Government is prepared to pay to the applicant Mr Todor Hristov the global sum of 2,730 euros (two thousand seven hundred and thirty 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 personal account of the applicant within three months from the date of the notification of the Court 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 3 March 2011 the applicant stated, inter alia, 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 this part 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.
The Court has examined the remainder of the complaints as submitted by the applicant. 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 applicant has failed to substantiate his 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 and in respect of the right to an effective remedy under Article 13 of the Convention and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike this part of the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
André Wampach Peer Lorenzen
Deputy Registrar President