European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Pece RISTEVSKI and P.P. ROTEKS-Bitola v the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia - 11993/06 [2011] ECHR 296 (25 January 2011)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/296.html
Cite as: [2011] ECHR 296
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no.
11993/06
by Pece RISTEVSKI and P.P. ROTEKS-Bitola
against the
former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 25 January 2011 as a Committee composed of:
Mark Villiger,
President,
Isabelle
Berro-Lefèvre,
Angelika Nußberger,
and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 6 March 2006,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The first applicant Mr Pece Ristevski is a Macedonian national who was born in 1964 and lives in Bitola. He is a sole proprietor and manager of the second applicant, which is a company registered in the respondent State. The applicants are represented before the Court by the first applicant. The Macedonian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, R. Lazareska Gerovska.
The case mainly concerned the length of civil proceedings for debt, unlawful acquisition and termination of a lease contract against the applicants. The proceedings started on 23 July 1998 when a public utility company claimed payment of a debt, against the applicants. They ended on 14 March 2007 with the Supreme Court’s decision, allegedly served on the applicants on 20 April 2007.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention that their case had not been heard within a reasonable time. Referring to the outcome of the proceedings, they also invoked Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention. Moreover, they complained about other proceedings.
THE LAW
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
By letter dated 27 August 2010 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
The declaration provided, inter alia, as follows:
“... the Government would hereby like to express – by a way of unilateral declaration – its acknowledgement that in the special circumstances of the present case, the length of the domestic proceedings did not fulfil the requirement of ”reasonable time” referred to in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. Consequently, the Government is prepared to pay to the applicants Mr Pece Ristevski and P.P. Roteks the global sum of 1,190 euros (one thousand, one hundred and ninety euros). In its view, this amount would constitute adequate redress and sufficient compensation for the impugned length of the said proceedings, and thus a reasonable sum as to quantum in the present case in the light of the Court’s case law. This sum is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as the costs and expenses and will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. This sum will be payable to personal account of the applicants Ristevski and company Roteks within three months from the date of the notification of the Court decision pursuant to Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention ... In the light of the above and in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention the Government would like to suggest that the circumstances of the present case allow the Court to reach the conclusion that for “any other reason” it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application. Moreover, there are no reasons of a general character, as defined in Article 37 § 1 in fine, which would require the further examination of the case by virtue of that provision. Therefore, the Government invites the Court to strike the application out of its list of cases.”
In a letter received by the Court on 20 September 2010 the applicants stated that the sum mentioned in the Government’s declaration was unacceptably low.
Having regard to the Court’s practice in this field (see Petkovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 27314/04, 13 November 2008 and Ajvazi v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 30956/05, 13 November 2008) and to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed, which is compatible with the amounts awarded in similar cases, the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of this part of the application (Article 37 § 1(c)).
Moreover, in light of the above considerations, and in particular given the clear and extensive case-law on the topic, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of this part of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine). Accordingly, it should be struck out of the list.
The Court has examined the remainder of the complaints as submitted by the applicants. However, having regard to all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that the applicants have failed to substantiate their complaints. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration in respect of the length-of-proceedings complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike this part of the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Stephen Phillips Mark Villiger
Deputy Registrar President