Nikola FIDANOVSKI and Joce GOSEVSKI v the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia - 23789/07 [2011] ECHR 355 (31 January 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 >> Nikola FIDANOVSKI and Joce GOSEVSKI v the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia - 23789/07 [2011] ECHR 355 (31 January 2011) URL: https://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/355.html Cite as: [2011] ECHR 355 [ New search ] [ Contents list ] [ Printable RTF version ] [ Help ] FIFTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 23789/07 by Nikola FIDANOVSKI and Joce GOŠEVSKI against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 31 January 2011 as a Committee composed of: Zdravka Kalaydjieva, President , Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, Julia Laffranque, judges , and Stephen Phillips , Deputy Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 10 May 2007, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The application was lodged by Mr Nikola Fidanovski and Mr Joce Goševski, Macedonian nationals who were born in 1947 and 1951 respectively and live in Bitola. They were 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 applicants claimed compensation for unlawful dismissal. The proceedings started on 7 October 1997 and ended on 25 December 2006 when the Bitola Court of Appeal’s decision of 12 December 2006 was served on the applicants. COMPLAINTS The applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention that their case had not been heard within a reasonable time. Relying on the same provision they further alleged that domestic judges had been biased. The applicants also complained about errors in facts and the law and about the assessment and admissibility of evidence. In addition they invoked Article 13 and Article 1 of Protocol No.1 to the Convention. THE LAW The applicants 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 25 October 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, 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 each of the applicants the global sum of 3,430 euros (three thousand four 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 personal accounts of the applicants 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 6 December 2010 the applicants stated that they did not agree with the declaration, as 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 this part 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 applicants further complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that that domestic judges had been biased. Relying on the same Convention Article the applicants further alleged errors in facts and the law and complained about the assessment and admissibility of evidence. In addition they invoked Article 13 and Article 1 of Protocol No.1. The Court has examined the remainder of the complaints as submitted by the applicants. 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 applicants have failed to substantiate their complaints. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) 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 and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein; Decides to strike this part of the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention; Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible. Stephen Phillips Zdravka Kalaydjieva Deputy Registrar President BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII URL: https://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/355.html