FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 3820/04
by Gjurgja DELOVA
against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 2 December 2008 as a Chamber composed of:

and ,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 15 January 2004,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 30 June 2008 requesting the Court to strike the length complaint application out of the list of cases,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mrs Gjurgja Delova, is a Macedonian national who was born in 1944 and lives in the village of Davidovo. She was represented before the Court by Ms V. Dangova, a lawyer practising in Skopje. The Macedonian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs R. Lazareska Gerovska.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 13 August 1993 the applicant brought a civil action for annulment of her employer's decision granting tenancies to two of its employees.
On 21 February 2003, following two remittal orders, the Gevgelija Court of First Instance dismissed the applicant's claim. On 3 July 2003 the Skopje Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's decision finding no grounds to depart from the established facts and the reasons given. This decision was served on the applicant on 24 September 2003.
On 17 December 2003 the public prosecutor refused to lodge with the Supreme Court a request for the protection of legality (барање за заштита на законитоста).
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Articles 6, 13 and 14 of the Convention that she had not been granted an apartment and had been discriminated.
THE LAW
1. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings. 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 30 June 2008, 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 length part of 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 2,030 euros (two thousand and thirty 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 an account named by 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 awards 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.
2. The applicant complained also under Articles 6, 13 and 14 of the Convention.
The Court has examined the remainder of the application 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 these 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