Judgment (Revision) of Court (First Section Committee), May 21, 2015 (case CASE OF DIMITRIJOSKI v. \)

• Resolution Date: May 21, 2015
• Issuing Organization: Court (First Section Committee)

FIRST SECTION

CASE OF DIMITRIJOSKI v. THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

(Application no. 3129/04)

Judgment

(Revision)

STRASBOURG

21 May 2015

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Dimitrijoski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, (request for revision of the judgment of 15 September 2014),

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

             Elisabeth Steiner, President,              Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,              Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos, judges,and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 21 April 2015,

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

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in an application (no. 3129/04) 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 Radoslav Dimitrijoski (“the applicant”), on 7 November 2003.

2. In a judgment delivered on 10 October 2013 (“the original judgment”), the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the length of civil proceedings initiated by the applicant. The Court also decided to award the applicant 2,400 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and dismissed the remainder of the claims for just satisfaction.

3. On 3 February 2014 the respondent Government informed the Court that the applicant had died on 20 November 2011 and requested revision of the judgment under Rule 80 of the Rules of Court. With a letter received on 7 March 2014, the applicant’s widow, Mrs Verka Dimitrioska, confirmed the applicant’s death and requested that the Court award her the just satisfaction.

   THE LAW

                THE REQUEST FOR REVISION

4. The respondent Government requested revision of the original judgment given that the applicant had died before its adoption and no heirs of the applicant had requested to pursue the application on his behalf. They

   requested the Court to strike the application out of its list of cases or, alternatively, to award the just satisfaction to the applicant’s heirs.

5. Mrs V. Dimitrioska stated that she had been unaware that she should have informed the Court of the applicant’s death; that she was poor and had no means to appoint a lawyer. She further submitted a decision delivered on 27 November 2013 declaring her...