by Đuro RAJKOVIĆ
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 15 September 2009 as a Chamber composed of:
Ireneu Cabral Barreto,
Nona Tsotsoria, judges,
and Sally Dollé, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 24 November 2006,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 22 October 2008 requesting the Court to strike the application out of its list of cases and the applicant’s reply thereto,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
The applicant, Mr Đuro Rajković, is a Serbian national who was born in 1937 and lives in Petrovaradin. The Serbian Government (“the Government”) are represented by Mr S. Carić, Agent.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 28 August 1996 a third private party filed a compensation claim against the applicant before the Municipal Court in Novi Sad.
Following a remittal, on 16 January 2006 the Municipal Court in Novi Sad partly granted the third party’s request.
On 26 March 2009 the District Court in Novi Sad upheld this decision.
Under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention the applicant, in substance, complained that the proceedings in question had lasted too long.
The application was communicated to the Government under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
By letter dated 13 January 2009, the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by the applicant. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
The declaration, signed by the Government’s Agent, provided as follows:
“I declare that the Government of the Republic of Serbia is ready to accept that there had been a violation of the applicant’s rights under Article 6 paragraph 1 of the Convention and offer to pay the applicant the amount of EUR 2,000 ex gratia in respect of the application registered under no. 48145/06 before the European Court of Human Rights.
This sum, which covers any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs, shall be paid in dinar counter-value, free of any taxes that may be applicable and to an account ... [specified] ... by the applicant. The sum shall be payable within three months from the date of delivery of the ... decision by the Court. This payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.
The Government regret the occurrence of the actions which have led to the bringing of the present application.”
In a letter dated 3 April 2009 the applicant expressed the view that a strike-out of his case would not be justified.
The Court recalls 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. In particular, Article 37 § 1 (c) enables the Court to strike a case out of its list if it finds that “it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”, and it has done so in the past on the basis of certain unilateral declarations by respondent Governments even if the applicants wished to maintain their cases.
To this end, the Court will carefully examine the present declaration made by the respondent Government in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey, [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI).
The Court notes that it has specified in a number of cases the nature and extent of the obligations which arise for a State Party under Article 6 of the Convention concerning the right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see, among many others, Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, ECHR 2006; Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, ECHR 2000 XI; Ilić v. Serbia, no. 30132/04, 9 October 2007). Where the Court has found a breach of these Articles it has awarded just satisfaction, the amount of which has depended on the particular features of the case.
Having regard to the nature of the concessions contained in the Government’s unilateral declaration in the present case, the amount of compensation proposed (which can be considered reasonable in comparison with the Court’s awards in similar cases), as well as the fact that the judgment in question was ultimately enforced (after a delay of over four years), the Court finds that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention; see, for the relevant principles, Tahsin Acar, cited above; Haran v. Turkey, no. 25754/94, judgment of 26 March 2002).
The Court is also satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
Accordingly, it should be struck out of the list.
Finally, the Court recalls that, in accordance with Article 46 § 2 of the Convention, the Committee of Ministers is competent to supervise the execution of its final judgments only. However, should the respondent State, fail to comply with the terms of its unilateral declaration in the present case, the application could be restored to the Court’s list pursuant to Article 37 § 2 of the Convention (see Aleksentseva and 28 Others v. Russia (dec.), no. 75025/01, ECHR, 23 March 2006).
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
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 application out of its list of cases.
Sally Dollé Françoise