FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 37287/07
by Vasil STOJANOV
against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 27 September 2011 as a Committee composed of:
	Anatoly Kovler, President,
	Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,
	Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos, judges,
and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 8 August 2007,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Vasil Stojanov, is a Macedonian national who was born in 1943 and lives in Strumica. He was represented before the Court by Mr S. Petrov, a lawyer practising in Strumica. 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 applicant claimed unlawful enrichment. The proceedings started on 10 February 2000 and ended on 17 April 2007 when the Supreme Court’s judgment was served on the applicant.

COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that his case had not been heard within a reasonable time. Relying on the same provision he further complained about errors in facts and law and alleged judges’ bias. Referring to the outcome of the proceedings the applicant complained under Article 13 of the Convention. Finally, he complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
THE LAW
1. The applicant 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 4 April 2011 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 as follows:
“... the Government would hereby like to express – by a way of unilateral declaration – its acknowledgement that the special circumstances of the present case did not fulfil the requirement of the applicant rights protected by the Convention. Consequently, the Government is prepared to pay to the applicant Mr Vasil Stojanov the global sum of 924 euros (nine hundred twenty-four euros). In its view, this amount would constitute adequate redress and sufficient compensation for the violation indicated in the application, 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 account of the applicant 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 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 of 17 May 2011 the applicant expressed the view that 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.
2. The applicant further complained under Articles 6, 13 and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
The Court has examined the remainder of the complaint 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 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.

	André Wampach	Anatoly Kovler
	Deputy Registrar	President