FIRST SECTION
\nDECISION<\/p>\n
Application no. 60266\/14
\nIrena SPIROVSKA and Igor SPIROVSKI
\nagainst the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia<\/p>\n
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 12 February 2019 as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n
Tim Eicke, President,
\nJovan Ilievski,
\nGilberto Felici, judges,<\/p>\n
and Renata Degener, Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
Having regard to the above application lodged on 21 August 2014,<\/p>\n
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 12 June 2017 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicants\u2019 reply to that declaration,<\/p>\n
Having deliberated, decides as follows:<\/p>\n
FACTS AND PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. The applicants, Ms Irena Spirovska (\u201cthe first applicant\u201d) and Mr Igor Spirovski (\u201cthe second applicant\u201d), are Macedonian nationals, who were born in 1960 and live in Skopje. They are spouses. The second applicant was granted leave for self-representation and represented both applicants before the Court.<\/p>\n 2. The Macedonian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were initially represented by their former Agent, Mr K. Bogdanov, succeeded by Ms D. Djonova.<\/p>\n 3. The applicants\u2019 complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 concerning the dismissal of their compensation claim related to defamation established in criminal proceedings was communicated to the Government.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n 4. By a letter of 12 June 2017, 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.<\/p>\n 5. The declaration provided as follows:<\/p>\n \u201c… the Government would hereby like to express \u2013 by a way of unilateral declaration \u2013 its acknowledgement that in the special circumstances of the present case, did not fulfil the requirements of the applicants\u2019 rights protected by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. Consequently, the Government is prepared to pay to each of the two applicants, Igor Spirovski and Irena Spirovska, a sum of 2,700 EUR (two thousand seven hundred euros). In its view, this amount would constitute adequate redress and sufficient compensation for the violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the retrospective dismissal of their finally determined right to receive compensation for defamation violated their property rights and thus a reasonable sum as to quantum in the present case in the light of the Court\u2019s 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 the personal account of the applicants within three months from the date of the notification of the Court decision pursuant to Article 37 \u00a7 1 (c) of the Convention … In the light of the above and in accordance with Article 37 \u00a7 1 (c) of the Convention the Government, having in mind the terms of this declaration, would like to suggest that the circumstances of the present case allow the Court to reach the conclusion that for \u2018any other reason\u2019 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 \u00a7 1 in fine, which would require the further examination of the cases by virtue of that provision. Therefore, the Government invites the Court to strike the application out of its list of cases.\u201d<\/p>\n 6. By a letter received at the Court\u2019s Registry on 12 July 2017, the applicants indicated that they were not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration. They stated that the proposed amount was not adequate and sufficient compensation for the alleged violation and that the declaration contained no admission that the violation of their rights had been the result of legislation with retrospective effect. Furthermore, they considered that the nature of the alleged violation and the fact that the Government made no undertaking to amend the relevant legislation justified the need for the Court to continue the examination of their case.<\/p>\n 7. The Court reiterates 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 \u00a7 1 (c) enables the Court in particular to strike a case out of its list if:<\/p>\n \u201cfor any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application\u201d.<\/p>\n 8. It also reiterates that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application under Article 37 \u00a7 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicants wish the examination of the case to be continued.<\/p>\n 9. To this end, the Court has examined the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307\/95, \u00a7\u00a7 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; WAZA Sp. z o.o. v. Poland (dec.), no. 11602\/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwi\u0144ska v. Poland (dec.), no. 28953\/03, 18 September 2007).<\/p>\n 10. The Court has established in a number of cases its practice concerning complaints about legislative amendments with retrospective effect to the detriment of the applicants\u2019 compensation claims (see Pressos Compania Naviera S.A. and Others v. Belgium, 20 November 1995, \u00a7 43, Series A no. 332; Maurice v. France [GC], no. 11810\/03, \u00a7\u00a7 89-94, ECHR 2005\u2011IX; and Draon v. France [GC], no. 1513\/03, \u00a7\u00a7 81-86, 6 October 2005).<\/p>\n 11. The Court notes that in the present case the Government have explicitly accepted in their unilateral declaration that the retrospective dismissal of the applicants\u2019 compensation claims violated their property rights. It further takes note of the specific circumstances of the present case where the legislation at issue had a limited scope of application.<\/p>\n 12. Therefore, in view of the nature of the admissions contained in the Government\u2019s declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed \u2013 which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases \u2013 the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 \u00a7 1 (c)).<\/p>\n 13. 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 \u00a7 1 in fine).<\/p>\n 14. The Court notes the modalities agreed by the respondent Government for the payment of the amount proposed (see paragraph 5 above). In the event of failure to settle within the indicated period, simple interest shall be payable on the amount in question at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank plus three percentage points.<\/p>\n 15. The Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application could be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 \u00a7 2 of the Convention (see Josipovi\u0107 v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369\/07, 4 March 2008).<\/p>\n 16. The Court further notes that it has the discretion to award legal costs when it strikes out an application (Rule 43 \u00a7 4 of the Rules of Court). The general principles governing reimbursement of costs under Rule 43 \u00a7 4 are essentially the same as under Article 41 of the Convention (see Union of Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses and Others v. Georgia (dec.), no. 72874\/01, 21 April 2015). In other words, an award can be made to an applicant in respect of costs and expenses only in so far as they have been actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum (see, among other authorities, Nikolova v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 31195\/96, \u00a7 79, ECHR 1999-II, and Donadz\u00e9 v. Georgia, no. 74644\/01, \u00a7 48, 7 March 2006).<\/p>\n 17. In the present case, having regard to the documents in its possession and to the criteria set out above, the Court considers it reasonable to award, jointly to the applicants, the sum of 650 euros (EUR) in respect of legal costs and expenses incurred in the domestic proceedings, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants. This amount is to be converted into the national currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of payment.<\/p>\n 18. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.<\/p>\n For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,<\/p>\n Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government\u2019s declaration under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;<\/p>\n Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 \u00a7 1 (c) of the Convention;<\/p>\n Holds<\/p>\n (a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, jointly, within three months, EUR 650 (six hundred and fifty euros) plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants in respect of costs and expenses incurred in the domestic proceedings, to be converted into the national currency at the rate applicable on the date of settlement;<\/p>\n (b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.<\/p>\n Done in English and notified in writing on 14 March 2019.<\/p>\n Renata DegenerTim Eicke
\nDeputy RegistrarPresident<\/p>\n