European Court of Human Rights

 

 

FIRST SECTION

 

 

 

 

 

CASE OF NAUMOSKI v. THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

 

(Application no. 25248/05)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

(Revision)

 

STRASBOURG

 

5 December 2013

 

 

 

 

 

 

This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Naumoski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, (request for revision of the judgment of 27 November 2012),

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:

Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre, President,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,
Julia Laffranque,
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos,
Erik Møse, judges,
and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 12 November 2013,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1.  The case originated in an application (no. 25248/05) against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Macedonian national, Mr Velko Naumoski (“the applicant”), on 14 June 2004.

2.  In a judgment delivered on 27 November 2012, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the domestic courts’ failure to forward to the applicant the defendant’s observations in reply to the applicant’s appeals, as well as on account of the length of proceedings regarding his dismissal. The Court also decided to award the applicant 2,500 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 120 for costs and expenses and dismissed the remainder of the claims for just satisfaction.

3.  On 14 February 2013 the Government requested revision of the judgment within the meaning of Rule 80 of the Rules of Court concerning an alleged incorrect issue of fact established by the Court.

4.  On 2 April 2013 the Court considered the request for revision and decided to give the applicant until 16 May 2013 to submit any observations. Those observations were received on 7 May 2013.

THE LAW

THE REQUEST FOR REVISION

5.  The Government requested revision of the judgment of 27 November 2012 alleging that the Court had wrongly established that the Supreme Court’s decision dismissing the applicant’s appeal on points of law had been rendered on 27 March 2003, instead of 27 November 2003 (see paragraph 14 of the original judgment). Referring to the wrong date of the decision, the Court further concluded, again in error, that “... it took nearly nine months for the Supreme Court’s decision of 27 March 2003 to be served on the applicant” (see paragraph 38 of the original judgment). The Court decided accordingly on the basis of wrong facts.

6.  The applicant agreed that the Supreme Court’s decision had been rendered on 27 November 2003. However, that error had no bearing on the Court’s findings that the length of the dismissal proceedings was, in any event, excessive.

7.  The Court notes that Rule 80 of the Rules of Court, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:

“A party may, in the event of the discovery of a fact which might by its nature have a decisive influence and which, when a judgment was delivered, was unknown to the Court and could not reasonably have been known to that party, request the Court ... to revise that judgment.

...”

8.  The Court observes that, in the original judgment of 27 November 2012, it wrongly established that the Supreme Court’s decision had been rendered on 27 March 2003 (see paragraph 14 of the original judgment) whereas the correct date was 27 November 2003. At the time, that error could not have been known to the parties. Furthermore, the erroneous date was taken into consideration by the Court for the calculation of the time that had lapsed before the Supreme Court’s decision had been served on the applicant (see paragraph 38 of the original judgment). This error was part of the reasons for the Court to conclude that the length of the impugned proceedings had been in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement under Article 6 of the Convention.

9.  In view of the above, the Court considers that the requirements for revision of the judgment, specified in Rule 80 of the Rules of Court have been met in the present case. Accordingly, it considers that the judgment of 27 November 2012 should be revised and the facts amended to indicate the correct date on which the Supreme Court’s decision was rendered.

10.  Given that the remaining facts of the case remain the same as established in the original judgment (see paragraphs 7-16 of the original judgment), the Court notes that the impugned proceedings lasted about five years and three months at three levels of jurisdiction (see paragraph 34 of the original judgment). In view of the well-established criteria in length-of-proceedings cases and the Court’s findings regarding the applicant’s diligent behaviour and the complexity of the case (see paragraphs 35-37 of the original judgment), the Court sees no reason to depart from its conclusion that the domestic courts were responsible for the protracted length of the proceedings. In this connection it notes that after the partial decision, the proceedings before the first-instance court concerning the payment of work-related benefits laid dormant for nearly two years and five months (see paragraphs 10 and 15 of the original judgment). During this time, the first-instance court took no action as regards the remainder of the applicant’s claim. That delay affected the overall length of the proceedings, which, having regard to what was at stake for the applicant and the special diligence required in employment-related disputes (see Ziberi v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 27866/02, § 47, 5 July 2007), cannot be regarded as reasonable. In view of the above, the Court considers that the length of the impugned proceedings, as revised, was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable-time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

11.  Therefore, the Court decides to confirm then original judgment of 27 November 2012 in this respect.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1.  Decides to revise the judgment;

 

2.  Confirms the conclusions of the original judgment of 27 November 2012.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 5 December 2013, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Søren Nielsen Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre
Registrar President