BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
European Court of Human Rights |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Petar KOCANKOVSKI v the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia - 2543/05 [2008] ECHR 1799 (2 December 2008) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2008/1799.html Cite as: [2008] ECHR 1799 |
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
2543/05
by Petar KOCANKOVSKI
against the former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 2 December 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Peer
Lorenzen,
President,
Rait
Maruste,
Karel
Jungwiert,
Renate
Jaeger,
Mark
Villiger,
Isabelle
Berro-Lefèvre,
Mirjana
Lazarova Trajkovska,
judges,
and
Claudia Westerdiek, Section
Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 4 January 2005,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case.
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Petar Kocankovski, is a Macedonian national who was born in 1935 and lives in Bitola. The Macedonian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs R. Lazareska Gerovska.
The application concerns a claim for compensation of pecuniary damages for breach of contract. The proceedings in question started on 30 June 1994 and ended on 5 July 2004, when the Bitola Court of Appeal’s decision of 9 June 2004 was served on the applicant.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that his case had not been heard within a reasonable time.
Relying on the same Article, he complained also that there had been a violation of the principle of equality of arms, that evidence had been wrongly assessed and that the sitting judges had lacked impartiality.
THE LAW
On 14 May 2008 the Court received the following declaration from the Government:
“I, Radica Lazareska Gerovska, Agent of the
Government, declare that the Government of the Republic of Macedonia
offer to pay ex gratia 2,900 euros to
Mr Petar Kocankovski
with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned
case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.
This sum, which is to cover any non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be converted into Macedonian Denars at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will 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 undertake 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 will constitute the final resolution of the case.”
On 16 April 2008 the Court received a declaration, duly signed by the applicant, which read, inter alia, as follows:
“I, Petar Kocankovski, the applicant, note that the Government of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia are prepared to pay me ex gratia the sum of 2,900 euros with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights ... I accept the proposal and waive any further claims against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in respect of the facts giving rise to this application. I declare that this constitutes a 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 should be struck 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
Registrar President