European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> NadeZda ZARUBICA v Serbia - 47250/07 [2010] ECHR 843 (11 May 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/843.html
Cite as: [2010] ECHR 843
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
47250/07
by NadeZda ZARUBICA
against Serbia
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 11 May 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Françoise
Tulkens,
President,
Danutė
Jočienė,
Dragoljub
Popović,
András
Sajó,
Nona
Tsotsoria,
Kristina
Pardalos,
Guido
Raimondi,
judges,
and
Sally Dollé, Section
Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 29 October 2007,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 5 August 2009 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 applicant, Ms NadeZda Zarubica, is a Serbian national who was born in 1949 and lives in Belgrade. She was represented before the Court by Ms K. Radović and Mr V. Đerić, lawyers practicing in Belgrade. The Serbian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr S. Carić.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 23 April 1981 the applicant filed a copyright related civil suit against a publishing company and another private party before the District Court in Belgrade.
Following three remittals, on 4 April 2005 the District Court in Belgrade ruled in favour of the applicant. On 28 December 2005 the Supreme Court quashed the judgment of 4 April 2005, and returned the case to the District Court for fresh consideration. In the repeated proceedings the court scheduled at least four hearings. From 26 May 2006 the court failed to hear an expert witness who was refusing to provide his opinion. This expertise was only submitted at a hearing held on 13 February 2008.
The case appears to be still pending at first instance.
COMPLAINTS
Relying on Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention, the applicant complained about the length of the impugned proceedings, as well as the absence of an effective domestic remedy for procedural delay.
THE LAW
The application had been communicated to the Government under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention, regarding the procedural delay in the applicant's copyright suit.
By letter dated 5 August 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 are ready to accept that there had been a violation of the applicant's right under Article 6 paragraph 1 [...] and Article 13 of the Convention and unilaterally offer to pay to the applicants jointly the amount of EUR 2,600 ex gratia in respect of the application registered under no. 47250/07 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 submission dated 9 October 2009, the applicant informed the Court that she accepted the Government's declaration.
The Court takes note of the settlement between the parties. It is satisfied that the declaration upon which the settlement is based respects human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and it finds no public policy reasons to justify a continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). However, as the proceedings are still pending domestically, the Government should ensure that they are concluded rapidly, whilst safeguarding the proper administration of justice.
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list, in accordance with Articles 37 1 (b) and 39 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Sally Dollé Françoise
Tulkens
Registrar President