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 >> Vojmir GOLUBOVIK and Dobrinka VOJDINOSKA v the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia - 41111/07 [2010] ECHR 1923 (2 November 2010) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/1923.html Cite as: [2010] ECHR 1923 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no.
41111/07
by Vojmir GOLUBOVIK and Dobrinka VOJDINOSKA
against
the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 2 November 2010 as a Committee composed of:
Rait
Maruste,
President,
Mirjana
Lazarova Trajkovska,
Zdravka
Kalaydjieva, judges
and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 10 September 2007,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 26 May 2010 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicants’ reply to that declaration,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants, Mr Vojmir Golubovik (“the first applicant”) and Ms Dobrinka Vojdinoska (“the second applicant”) are Macedonian nationals who were born in 1964 and 1925 and live in Ohrid. They were represented before the Court by Mr M. Popeski, a lawyer practising in Ohrid. The Macedonian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, R. Lazareska Gerovska.
The case mainly concerned the length of civil proceedings for determination of a title to a property and annulment of a care agreement. As to the first applicant the proceedings started on 15 February 2002 and ended on 23 March 2007 when the Bitola Court of Appeal’s decision of 14 February 2007 was served. As to the second applicant the proceedings started on 4 April 1994 and ended on 15 May 2007 when the above decision was served on her.
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 courts did not provide sufficient reasons for their decisions. In addition they invoked Article 13.
THE LAW
“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 26 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, 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 applicants Mr Vojmir Golubovik and Ms Dobrinka Vojdinoska jointly the global sum of 3,360 euros (three thousand, three hundred and sixty 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 10 August 2010 the applicants stated that they did not agree with the declaration, as they had also lodged other complaints apart from the one about the length of the proceedings.
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 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 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 Rait Maruste
Deputy Registrar President
