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 £5, 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 >> Saso KOCEVSKI v the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia - 39627/06 [2010] ECHR 392 (2 March 2010) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/392.html Cite as: [2010] ECHR 392 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
39627/06
by Sašo KOCEVSKI
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,
Mirjana
Lazarova Trajkovska,
Zdravka
Kalaydjieva,
judges,
and Claudia
Westerdiek, Section
Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 21 September 2006,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 19 November 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 Sašo Kocevski, a Macedonian national who was born in 1967 and lives in Skopje. He was represented before the Court by Mr E Milanov, 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 criminal proceedings in which the applicant was convicted of fraud.
The proceedings started on 19 July 1999 and ended on 23 March 2006 when the Skopje Court of Appeal’s decision of 21 February 2006 was served on the applicant.
COMPLAINTS
The
applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that
his case had not been heard within a reasonable time. Relying on the
same provision the applicant further alleged that the domestic courts
had erred in facts and law; that their decisions had lacked
reasons and that judges had
been biased. He also
complained under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention alleging a
violation of the presumption of innocence principle.
LAW
““In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
By letter dated 19 November 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 1,610 euros (one thousand six hundred and ten 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”
The 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.
that their decisions had lacked reasons and that judges had
been biased. He also complained under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention alleging a violation of the presumption of innocence principle.
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