CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 12 février 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s13F94BDE { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sEB98FB19 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s75D280D2 { width:205.95pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block }     FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 60266/14 Irena SPIROVSKA and Igor SPIROVSKI against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia   The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 12   February 2019 as a Committee composed of:   Tim Eicke, President,   Jovan Ilievski,   Gilberto Felici, judges, and Renata Degener, Deputy Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 21 August 2014, Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 12 June 2017 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: FACTS AND PROCEDURE 1.     The applicants, Ms Irena Spirovska (“the first applicant”) and Mr Igor Spirovski (“the second applicant”), are Macedonian nationals, who were born in 1960 and live in Skopje. They are spouses. The second applicant was granted leave for self-representation and represented both applicants before the Court. 2.     The Macedonian Government (“the Government”) were initially represented by their former Agent, Mr K.   Bogdanov, succeeded by Ms   D.   Djonova. 3.     The applicants’ complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 concerning the dismissal of their compensation claim related to defamation established in criminal proceedings was communicated to the Government. THE LAW 4.     By a letter of 12 June 2017, 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. 5 .     The declaration provided 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, did not fulfil the requirements of the applicants’ rights protected by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. Consequently, the Government is prepared to pay to each of the two applicants, Igor Spirovski and Irena Spirovska, a sum of 2,700 EUR (two thousand seven hundred euros). In its view, this amount would constitute adequate redress and sufficient compensation for the violation of Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1 that the retrospective dismissal of their finally determined right to receive compensation for defamation violated their property rights 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 applicants within three months from the date of the notification of the Court 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, having in mind the terms of this declaration, 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 cases by virtue of that provision. Therefore, the Government invites the Court to strike the application out of its list of cases.” 6.     By a letter received at the Court’s Registry on 12 July 2017, the applicants indicated that they were not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration. They stated that the proposed amount was not adequate and sufficient compensation for the alleged violation and that the declaration contained no admission that the violation of their rights had been the result of legislation with retrospective effect. Furthermore, they considered that the nature of the alleged violation and the fact that the Government made no undertaking to amend the relevant legislation justified the need for the Court to continue the examination of their case. 7.     The Court reiterates that Article   37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified, under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. Article   37   §   1   (c) enables the Court in particular to strike a case out of its list if: “for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”. 8.     It also reiterates that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application under Article   37   §   1   (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicants wish the examination of the case to be continued. 9.     To this end, the Court has examined the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment ( Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no.   26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; WAZA Sp. z o.o. v. Poland (dec.), no.   11602/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.), no. 28953/03, 18   September   2007). 10.     The Court has established in a number of cases its practice concerning complaints about legislative amendments with retrospective effect to the detriment of the applicants’ compensation claims (see Pressos Compania Naviera S.A. and Others v. Belgium , 20 November 1995, § 43, Series A no. 332; Maurice v. France [GC], no. 11810/03, §§ 89-94, ECHR   2005 ‑ IX; and Draon v. France [GC], no. 1513/03, §§ 81-86, 6   October 2005). 11.     The Court notes that in the present case the Government have explicitly accepted in their unilateral declaration that the retrospective dismissal of the applicants’ compensation claims violated their property rights. It further takes note of the specific circumstances of the present case where the legislation at issue had a limited scope of application. 12.     Therefore, in view of the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent 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)). 13.     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 the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine ). 14.     The Court notes the modalities agreed by the respondent Government for the payment of the amount proposed (see paragraph 5 above). In the event of failure to settle within the indicated period, simple interest shall be payable on the amount in question at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank plus three percentage points. 15.     The Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application could be restored to the list in accordance with Article   37 § 2 of the Convention (see Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008). 16.     The Court further notes that it has the discretion to award legal costs when it strikes out an application (Rule 43 § 4 of the Rules of Court). The general principles governing reimbursement of costs under Rule 43 § 4 are essentially the same as under Article 41 of the Convention (see Union of Jehovah’s Witnesses and Others v. Georgia (dec.), no. 72874/01, 21   April   2015). In other words, an award can be made to an applicant in respect of costs and expenses only in so far as they have been actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum (see, among other authorities, Nikolova v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 31195/96, § 79, ECHR 1999-II, and Donadzé v. Georgia , no. 74644/01, § 48, 7 March 2006). 17.     In the present case, having regard to the documents in its possession and to the criteria set out above, the Court considers it reasonable to award, jointly to the applicants, the sum of 650 euros (EUR) in respect of legal costs and expenses incurred in the domestic proceedings, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants. This amount is to be converted into the national currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of payment. 18.     In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein; Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article   37   §   1   (c) of the Convention; Holds (a)     that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, jointly, within three months, EUR 650 (six hundred and fifty euros) plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants in respect of costs and expenses incurred in the domestic proceedings, to be converted into the national currency at the rate applicable on the date of settlement; (b)     that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. Done in English and notified in writing on 14 March 2019. Renata Degener   Tim Eicke Deputy Registrar   President