[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> OBLAST v Serbia - 43494/07 [2009] ECHR 960 (26 May 2009) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2009/960.html Cite as: [2009] ECHR 960

[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 43494/07
by SRPSKA PRAVOSLAVNA CRKVENA OPŠTINA ZA RAŠKU OBLAST
against Serbia

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 26 May 2009 as a Chamber composed of:

Françoise Tulkens, President,
Ireneu Cabral Barreto,
Danutė Jočienė,
Dragoljub Popović,
András Sajó,
Nona Tsotsoria,
Işıl Karakaş, judges,
Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar.

Having regard to the above application lodged on 25 September 2007,

Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Srpska Pravoslavna crkvena opština za Rašku oblast, is a diocese of the Serbian Ortodox Church, with its seat in Novi Pazar. It was represented before the Court by Ms M. Popović, a lawyer practising in the same town. The Serbian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr S. Carić.

The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the excessive length of a property-related suit, which it had brought before the Municipal Court (Opštinski sud) in Novi Pazar on 19 September 1980. Following two remittals, its case is currently still pending at first instance.

THE LAW

On 7 October 2008 the Court received the following declaration from the Government:

“I declare that the Government of Serbia offer to pay ex gratia 2,600 euros to “Srpska Pravoslavna crkvena opština za Rašku oblast” 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, suffered as a result of domestic procedural delay, as well as the costs and expenses, will be converted into the national currency 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 pending before the European Court of Human Rights. The applicant’s domestic claims shall be considered by the Serbian courts separately and are not affected by this declaration.”

On 7 March 2009 the Court also received the following declaration signed by the applicant’s lawyer:

“I note that the Government of Serbia are prepared to pay ex gratia the sum of 2,600 euros to “Srpska Pravoslavna crkvena opština za Rašku oblast” 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 Serbia in respect of the facts giving rise to this application. I declare that this constitutes the final resolution of ... [the applicant’s] ... case pending before the European Court of Human Rights. The ... [the applicant’s] ... domestic claims shall be considered by the Serbian courts separately and are not affected by this declaration.”

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). Nevertheless, in the particular circumstances of the case, the Court considers that the State should still ensure that all the necessary steps are taken to allow the trial to be concluded as speedily as possible, taking into account the requirements of the proper administration of justice. 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.

Françoise Elens-Passos Françoise Tulkens
Deputy Section Registrar President