Iren JUHAS v Serbia - 46811/06 [2011] ECHR 882 (10 May 2011)

[ Home ] [ Databases ] [ World Law ] [ Multidatabase Search ] [ Help ] [ Feedback ] [ DONATE ] European Court of Human Rights You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Iren JUHAS v Serbia - 46811/06 [2011] ECHR 882 (10 May 2011) URL: https://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/882.html Cite as: [2011] ECHR 882 [ New search ] [ Contents list ] [ Printable RTF version ] [ Help ] SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 46811/06 by Iren JUHAS against Serbia The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 10 May 2011 as a Committee composed of: András Sajó, President, Dragoljub Popović, Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque, judges, and Françoise Elens-Passos , Deputy Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 10 November 2006, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Ms Iren Juhas, is a Serbian national who was born in 1935 and lives in MuZlja. She was represented before the Court by Mr L. Lapadat, a lawyer practising in Zrenjanin. 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 summarized as follows: In the course of 1991 A. J., the applicant’s former husband, filed a property related lawsuit against her. By 28 April 2000 this claim was finally granted. On 17 February 1993 the applicant filed another property related lawsuit against A. J. Following a remittal, on 22 May 2007 the applicant’s request was granted by the Municipal Court in Zrenjanin. On 12 December 2007 the District Court in Zrenjanin partly upheld the judgment of 22 May 2007, at the same time finally resolving the case. THE LAW The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the civil proceedings she instigated against a third private party. By letter dated 11 May 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 as follows: “ I declare that the Government of the Republic of Serbia is ready to accept that there had been a violation of the applicant’s right under Article 6 paragraph 1 of the Convention and offer to pay to the applicant, Ms Iren Juhas, the amount of EUR 1,600 ex gratia in respect of the application registered under no. 46811/06 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. This 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 letter of 2 March 2011 the applicant expressed the view that the sum mentioned in the Government’s declaration was unacceptably low. The Court recalls that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified, under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. Article 37 § 1 (c) enables the Court in particular to strike a case out of its list if: “ for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”. It also recalls that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application under Article 37 § 1(c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued. To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment ( Tahsin Acar v. Turkey , [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI); WAZA Spółka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.) no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.) no. 28953/03). The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Serbia, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see, for example, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII; Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 69-98, ECHR 2006 ....; Majewski v. Poland , no. 52690/99, 11 October 2005; and Wende and Kukówka v. Poland , no. 56026/00, 10 May 2007). Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent 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 the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine ). For these reasons, the Court unanimously Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein; Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. Françoise Elens-Passos András Sajó Deputy Registrar President BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII URL: https://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/882.html