SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 43008/06
by Vera KATIĆ
against Serbia
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 7 December 2010 as a Committee composed of:
	András Sajó, President,
	Dragoljub Popović,
	Kristina Pardalos, judges,
and Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 18 October 2006,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 26 October 2009 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicant’s reply to that declaration,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Ms Vera Katić, is a Serbian national who was born in 1924 and lives in Novi Beograd. She was represented before the Court by Mr V. Zdravković, a lawyer practising in Beograd. The Serbian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr S. Carić.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 10 April 1991 the State filed a claim against the applicant, requesting the court to annul the applicant’s tenancy right over a flat in Belgrade.
Following two remittals, on 27 March 2007 the Fourth Municipal Court in Belgrade rejected this claim. On 23 September 2009 the District Court in Belgrade reversed this judgment, and partially granted the State’s claim. On 18 December 2009 the applicant filed an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court, where the case is still pending.
COMPLAINT
Relying on Articles 6 § 1 the Convention, the applicant complained about the length of proceedings in question, while under Article 8 she complained about the violation of her right to home, which she had apparently established in the flat in question.
THE LAW
1.	By letter dated 26 October 2009 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the applicant. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
The declaration provided as follows:
“I declare that the Government of the Republic of Serbia is ready to accept that there had been a violation of the applicant’s right under Articles 6 paragraph 1 and 13 of the Convention and offer to pay to the applicant, the amount of EUR 2,600 ex gratia in respect of the application registered under no. 43008/06 before the European Court of Human Rights.
This sum, which covers any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs, shall be paid in dinar counter-value, free of any taxes that may be applicable and to an account ... [specified] ... by the applicant. The sum shall be payable within three months from the date of delivery of the [decision] by the Court. This payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.
The Government regret the occurrence of the actions which have led to the bringing of the present application.”
In a letter of 9 February 2010 the applicant expressed the view that the sum mentioned in the Government’s declaration was unacceptably low.
The Court recalls 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”.
It also recalls 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 applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued.
To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (Tahsin Acar v. Turkey, [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI); WAZA Spółka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.) no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.) no. 28953/03).
The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Serbia, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see, for example, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII; Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 69-98, ECHR 2006‑....; Majewski v. Poland, no. 52690/99, 11 October 2005; and Wende and Kukówka v. Poland, no. 56026/00, 10 May 2007).
Having regard to 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, when account is taken of the fact that only six years and nine months of the impugned proceedings fall within the Court’s competence ratione temporis, Serbia having ratified the Convention on 3 March 2004) 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 the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike this part of the application out of the list.
Since the impugned proceedings appear to be still pending, it is to be noted that the Court’s strike-out decision is without prejudice to the merits of the applicant’s domestic claim or, indeed, its ability to obtain redress for any additional procedural delay which may occur after the date of the present decision.
Finally, the Court recalls that, should the respondent State, fail to comply with the terms of its unilateral declaration in the present case, the application could be restored to the Court’s list pursuant to Article 37 § 2 of the Convention (see Aleksentseva and 28 Others v. Russia (dec.), no. 75025/01, ECHR, 23 March 2006).
2.	The applicant also complained that her right to home had been violated.
Given that the proceedings at issue are apparently still pending, the Court finds that these complaints are premature and, as such, inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of 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 so far as it relates to this complaint in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
	Françoise Elens-Passos	András Sajó
	Deputy Registrar	President