by Kiril TASEV and Zoran MADZOVSKI
against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 20 October 2009 as a Chamber composed of:
Peer Lorenzen, President,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 23 January 2006,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
The applicants, Mr Kiril Tasev and Zoran Madzovski, are Macedonian nationals who were born in 1940 and 1959, respectively, and live in Skopje. They were represented before the Court by Mr D. Kadiev, a lawyer practising in Skopje. The Macedonian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs R. Lazareska Gerovska.
On the 10 June 2009 Court decided to communicate the applicants’ complaint concerning the lengthy non-enforcement of final judgment given in their favour. The proceedings began on 7 November 1996 and ended on 24 May 2006.
On 27 July 2009 and 15 September 2009 the Court received friendly settlement declarations signed by the parties under which the applicants agreed to waive any further claims against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in respect of the facts giving rise to this application against an undertaking by the Government to pay 2,600 euros to each of the two applicants to cover any non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, which would be converted into Macedonian Denars at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and free of any taxes that may be applicable. This sum would be payable to the personal accounts of the applicants 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 undertook 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 would constitute the final resolution of the case.
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).
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.
Stephen Phillips Peer Lorenzen
Deputy Registrar President