European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Marija RADAKOVIC v Serbia - 32280/07 [2009] ECHR 1383 (1 September 2009)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2009/1383.html
Cite as: [2009] ECHR 1383
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
32280/07
by Marija RADAKOVIĆ
against Serbia
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 1 September 2009 as a Chamber composed of:
Françoise
Tulkens,
President,
Ireneu
Cabral Barreto,
Vladimiro
Zagrebelsky,
Danutė
Jočienė,
Dragoljub
Popović,
András
Sajó,
Nona
Tsotsoria,
judges,
and Sally
Dollé, Section
Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 28 May 2007,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having regard to the decision to grant priority to the above application under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Ms Marija Radaković, is a Serbian national who was born in 1992 and lives in Sremska Mitrovica. She was represented before the Court by Mr O. Perić, a lawyer practising in the same town. The Serbian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr S. Carić.
Under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the applicant complained that the child maintenance proceedings instituted before the Municipal Court in Sremska Mitrovica have been excessively long. She also complained under Article 13 of the Convention, about a lack of effective remedies for such delays. Her case is presently pending at second instance.
THE LAW
On 19 May 2009 the Court received the following declaration from the Government:
“I declare that the Government of Serbia offer to pay the applicant’s legal guardian ex gratia 3,400 euros with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.
This sum, which is to cover any non-pecuniary damage, suffered as a result of domestic procedural delay, as well as the costs and expenses, will be converted into the national currency at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it, from 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 pending before the European Court of Human Rights. The applicant’s domestic claims shall be considered by the Serbian courts separately and are not affected by this declaration.”
The Court also received the following declaration signed by the applicant’s lawyer:
“I note that the Government of Serbia are prepared to pay the applicant’s legal guardian ex gratia the sum of 3,400 euros with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights ... Having consulted my clients, I would inform you that they accept the proposal and waive any further claims against Serbia in respect of the facts giving rise to this application. I declare that this constitutes the final resolution of ... [the applicant’s] ... case. The ... [the applicant’s] ... domestic claims shall be considered by the Serbian courts separately and are not affected by this declaration.”
The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no public policy reasons to justify a continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). Nevertheless, in the particular circumstances of the case, the Court considers that the State should still ensure that all the necessary steps are taken to allow the trial to be concluded as speedily as possible, taking into account the requirements of the proper administration of justice. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Sally Dollé Françoise
Tulkens
Registrar President