FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 26368/04
by Mirko VOJCEVSKI and Others
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 5 July 2004,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants are thirteen Macedonian nationals. The first applicant, Mr Mirko Vojcevski, was born in 1958 and lives in Skopje. The second applicant, Ms Rosa Naumova, was born in 1952 and lives in Skopje. The third applicant, Ms Milojka Miteva, was born in 1953 and lives in Skopje. The fourth applicant, Ms Radica Todorovska, was born in 1959 and lives in Skopje. The fifth applicant, Ms Pavlina Krstevska, was born in 1957 and lives in Skopje. The sixth applicant, Ms Zorica Georgieva, was born in 1959 and lives in Skopje. The seventh applicant, Mr Mile Šterjoski, was born in 1961 and lives in Skopje. The eighth applicant, Ms Snežana Trajkovska, was born in 1949 and lives in Skopje. The ninth applicant, Mr Vidan Atanasovski, was born in 1955 and lives in Skopje. The tenth applicant, Mr Marko Stojanovski, was born in 1956 and lives in Skopje. The eleventh applicant, Ms Mira Manevska, was born in 1955 and lives in Skopje. The twelfth applicant, Mr Borče Iljov, was born in 1950 and lives in Skopje. The thirteenth applicant, Mr Krste Gjorgjievski, was born in 1964 and lives in Katlanovska banja. They were represented before the Court by Mr D. Todorovski, a lawyer practising in Skopje. The Macedonian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs R. Lazareska Gerovska.
The application concerns a labour dispute in which the applicants claimed annulment of their dismissal. The proceedings in question started on 11 July 1997 and ended on 11 February 2004, when the Supreme Court’s decision of 6 November 2003 was served on the applicants.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention that their case had not been heard within a reasonable time.
They further alleged lack of impartiality of the domestic courts in view of the protracted length of the proceedings.
THE LAW
On 16 April 2008 the Court received the following declaration from the Government:
“I, Radica Lazareska Gerovska, Agent of the Government, declare that the Government of the Republic of Macedonia offer to pay ex gratia 1,650 euros to each of the thirteen applicants listed in the appendix enclosed to this declaration with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.
This sum, which is to cover any non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be converted into Macedonian Denars at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it, from expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.”
On 7 May 2008 the Court received a declaration, duly signed by the applicants’ representative, which read, inter alia, as follows:
“I, Dimitar Todorovski, the representative, note that the Government of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia are prepared to pay to each of the thirteen applicants listed in the appendix enclosed to this declaration, ex gratia the sum of 1,650 euros with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights ... We accept the proposal and waive any further claims against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in respect of the facts giving rise to this application. We declare that this constitutes a final resolution of the case.”
The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no public policy reasons to justify a continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). In of the above, it should be struck out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
	Claudia Westerdiek	Peer Lorenzen
	Registrar	President