by Zdrave NIKOLOVSKI
against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 5 May 2009 as a Chamber composed of:
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,
Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges,
Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 29 May 2006,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case.
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
The applicant, Mr Zdrave Nikolovski, is Macedonian national who was born in 1934 and lives in Bitola. The Macedonian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs R. Lazareska Gerovska.
On 1 December 2008 the Court decided to communicate the applicant’s complaint concerning the length of compensation proceedings. The proceedings began on 12 August 1999 and ended on 25 January 2006.
On 14 January 2009 and 3 March 2009 the Court received friendly settlement declarations signed by the parties under which the applicant 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 him 880 euros 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 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.
Claudia Westerdiek Peer Lorenzen