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!
[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FIFTH
SECTION
CASE OF KOZAROV v. THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA
(Application no. 64229/01)
JUDGMENT
(Striking
out)
STRASBOURG
15
February 2007
This
judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44
§ 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Kozarov v. the former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Mr P. Lorenzen, President,
Mr K.
Jungwiert,
Mr V. Butkevych,
Mrs M. Tsatsa-Nikolovska,
Mr J.
Borrego Borrego,
Mrs R. Jaeger,
Mr M. Villiger,
judges,
Mrs S. Botoucharova,
Mr R. Maruste, substitute
judges,
and Mrs C. Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 22 January 2007,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 64229/01) against the former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia lodged with the Court under Article 34
of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Macedonian national,
Mr Dimče Kozarov (“the applicant”), on 30 May
2000.
- The
Macedonian Government (“the Government”) were represented
by their Agent, Mrs R. Lazareska Gerovska.
- The
applicant alleged that the length of the impugned proceedings had
been excessive.
- By
a decision of 10 November 2005 the Court declared the application
admissible.
- By
a letter received by the Court on 9 January 2006, the applicant
informed the Court that he had concluded before the Supreme Court a
court settlement with the respondent State and that the latter had
enforced it in full. Accordingly, he considered the case before the
Supreme Court and the Court as settled. On the Registry's request for
clarification, the applicant informed the Court by letter dated 25
January 2006 that he wishes to withdraw the application.
THE FACTS
- On
17 January 1997 the Skopje Pension and Disability Insurance Fund
(“the Fund”), determined the
amount of the applicant's pension.
- On
30 January 1997 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Fund's Appeal
Commission (Комисија
за жалби при
Фондот за пензиско
и инвалидско
осигурување
на Македонија)
on the ground that his pension entitlement had been incorrectly
calculated.
- On
5 June 1997 the Fund's Appeal Commission dismissed his appeal.
- On
1 October 1997 the Supreme Court set aside the Fund's decision and
remitted the case to the Appeal Commission, pointing out that the
administrative body had incorrectly interpreted and applied the
national law.
-
On 6 March 1998 the Government Appeal Commission (“the Commission”)
dismissed the applicant's appeal on the ground that
Article 36 of the Pension and Disability Insurance Act (Закон
за пензиското
и инвалидското
осигурување)
(“the Act”)
imposed a general ceiling on the amount of pension awards,
which determined and had an effect on the highest pension award
payable to the applicant.
-
On 6 October 1999 the Supreme Court upheld his claim and declared the
Commission's decision null and void. It held that the applicant's
pension had not been calculated correctly and gave instructions as to
how the applicant's pension was to be calculated in accordance with
the Act.
-
The Commission took no action further to that judgment despite a
submission by the applicant of 2 December 1999 that it should not
remain silent.
-
On 15 December 1999 the applicant applied to the Supreme Court,
requesting it to render a judgment in the absence of an
administrative decision concerning the amount of his pension. On 23
February 2000 he repeated his request before the court.
-
On 14 June 2000 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's request
on the ground that in the meantime, on 10 May 2000, the Commission
had rendered a decision concerning his claim and no judgment instead
could have been taken.
-
On 7 June 2000 the applicant challenged the Commission's decision
before the Supreme Court as it had again erred in law and had
apparently disregarded the court's legal reasoning and instructions
given in its judgment of 6 October 1998.
-
On 29 May 2002 the Supreme Court upheld the applicant's complaint and
declared the Commission's decision null and void. It repeated its
previous findings about wrong application of the law and instructed
the Commission to take into consideration its instructions in the
subsequent decision-making.
-
On 30 August 2002 the Commission rendered a decision which was not in
line with the instructions given by the Supreme Court.
-
On 30 September 2002, the applicant instituted, for the third time,
administrative contentious proceedings before the Supreme Court on
the same grounds as before.
-
On 16 April 2003 the Fund and the applicant concluded a court
settlement about the amount of the pension. It was concluded that the
amount agreed would be retroactively paid to the applicant from the
day when he met the criteria for age-retirement and that the
difference between the amount actually paid and the amount agreed
would be paid by the Fund in two instalments.
THE LAW
- By
a letter received by the Court on 9 January 2006, the applicant
informed the Court that he had concluded before the Supreme Court a
court settlement with the respondent State the terms of which had
been completely fulfilled. Accordingly, he considered the case before
the Supreme Court and the Court as settled. On the Registry's request
for clarification, by a letter of 25 January 2006 the applicant
informed the Court that he wished to withdraw the application.
- Article
37 § 1 of the Convention, insofar as relevant, provides as
follows:
“The Court may at any stage of the proceedings
decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the
circumstances lead to the conclusion that
(a) the applicant does not intend to pursue
his application...”
-
Having regard to the applicant's letter of 25 January 2006, the Court
finds that the applicant does not intend to pursue his application
within the meaning of the Article cited above.
-
The case concerned length-of-proceedings complaint under Article 6 §
1 and a complaint under Article 13 of the Convention, issue on which
the Court has had ample opportunity to express its opinion. In these
circumstances, the Court finds no reasons of a general character, as
defined in Article 37 § 1 in fine, which would require
the examination of the application by virtue of that Article (see
Osteo Deutschland GmbH v. Germany (striking out), no.
26988/95, § 24, 3 November 1999).
- Accordingly,
the case should be struck out of the list.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
Decides to strike the case out
of the list.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 15 February 2007,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Claudia Westerdiek Peer Lorenzen
Registrar President
