Nikola FIDANOVSKI (no. 2) v the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia - 21994/07 [2010] ECHR 403 (2 March 2010)

[ Home ] [ Databases ] [ World Law ] [ Multidatabase Search ] [ Help ] [ Feedback ] [ DONATE ] European Court of Human Rights You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Nikola FIDANOVSKI (no. 2) v the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia - 21994/07 [2010] ECHR 403 (2 March 2010) URL: https://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/403.html Cite as: [2010] ECHR 403 [ New search ] [ Contents list ] [ Printable RTF version ] [ Help ] FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 21994/07 by Nikola FIDANOVSKI (no. 2) against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 2 March 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 18 April 2007, Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 15 October 2009 requesting the Court to strike the length complaint out of the list of cases, Having deliberated, decides as follows: PROCEDURE The application was lodged by Mr Nikola Fidanovski, a Macedonian national who was born in 1947 and lives in Bitola. He was represented before the Court by Ms K. Jandrijeska Jovanova, a lawyer practising in Skopje. The Macedonian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs R. Lazareska Gerovska. The case mainly concerned the length of civil proceedings in which the applicant had claimed annulment of his dismissal. The proceedings started on 12 January 1998 and ended on 17 January 2007 when the Supreme Court's decision of 22 November 2006 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 Convention Article the applicant complained about the assessment and admissibility of evidence; about alleged errors in facts and law and about alleged judges' bias. He further complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention that his property rights had been violated. The applicant lastly invoked Article 13 of the Convention restating his complaints already raised under Article 6. LAW The applicant complained about the length of the civil proceedings under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. This provision provides as follows: “ 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 15 October 2009, 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 2,730 euros (two thousand seven hundred and thirty 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” T he applicant did not provide any comment within the time-limit specified by the Registry. 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. The applicant further complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the admissibility and assessment of evidence; about alleged errors in facts and law and about alleged judges' bias. He further complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention that his property rights had been violated. The applicant lastly invoked Article 13 of the Convention restating his complaints already raised under Article 6. The Court has examined the remainder of the complaints as submitted by the applicant. 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 applicant has failed to substantiate his 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; 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; Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible. Claudia Westerdiek Peer Lorenzen Registrar President BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII URL: https://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/403.html