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 >> Naume PRENTOSKI v the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia - 31833/05 [2010] ECHR 870 (18 May 2010) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/870.html Cite as: [2010] ECHR 870 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
31833/05
by Naume PRENTOSKI
against the former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on
18 May
2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Peer
Lorenzen,
President,
Renate
Jaeger,
Karel
Jungwiert,
Rait
Maruste,
Mark
Villiger,
Isabelle
Berro-Lefèvre,
Mirjana
Lazarova Trajkovska,
judges
and
Claudia Westerdiek, Section
Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 23 August 2005,
Having
regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 1
March 2010 requesting the Court to strike the
non-enforcement
complaint out of the list of cases,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The
applicant, Mr Naume Prentoski, is a Macedonian national who was born
in 1961 and lives in Struga. He is represented before the Court by Mr
Mirce Prentoski, who lives in Struga. The Macedonian Government (“the
Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs R. Lazareska
Gerovska. The case concerns lengthy
non-enforcement of a final judgment given in the applicant's favour.
The proceedings instituted on
4 November 1996 are still pending.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment in his favour.
THE LAW
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the lengthy non-enforcement of a judgment. This provision provides as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...”
By letter dated 1 March 2010, the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by this part of 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 applicant the global sum of 1,820 euros (one thousand
eight hundred and twenty 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 the
personal account of the applicant within three months from the
date of the notification of the 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 13 April 2010 the applicant 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 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.
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;
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in so far as it relates to the above complaint in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
Claudia Westerdiek Peer Lorenzen
Registrar President