FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 55131/08
by Attila ADAM
against Slovakia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 7 September 2010 as a Committee composed of:
Giovanni Bonello, President,
Lech Garlicki,
Ján Šikuta, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 10 November 2008,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and to the applicant's reply,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
The application was lodged by Mr Attila Adam, a Slovak national who was born in 1941 and lives in Rimavská Sobota. The Slovak Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs M. Pirošíková.
Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention the applicant complained about the length of proceedings, which started on 19 October 1998 and are still pending before the first-instance court. On 21 February 2008 the Constitutional Court found a violation of the constitutional equivalent of the applicant's right to a hearing within a reasonable time. It ordered the responsible court to proceed with the case and awarded the applicant the equivalent of 1,507 euros (at that time) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
THE LAW
The applicant complained about the length of the proceedings and relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention which, in its relevant part, provides:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
On 4 June 2010 the Court received the Government's unilateral declaration signed on the same day. The Government acknowledged both the applicant's victim status within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention and the unreasonable duration of the domestic proceedings in which the applicant had been involved. They offered to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 3,400 (three thousand four hundred euros) to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage together with any costs and expenses incurred by the applicant with respect to the violation of his right under the Convention. They suggested that the above information be accepted by the Court as “any other reason” justifying the striking out of the case of the Court's list of cases, as referred to in Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. In the event of the Court's decision pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the Convention, the Government undertook to pay to the applicant the declared sum within three months from the date of notification of the decision. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, they undertook 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. This payment would constitute the final settlement of the case.
In a letter of 28 June 2010 the applicant disagreed with the amount set out in the Government's declaration and requested EUR 100,150.97.
The Court reiterates that it may strike out an application under Article 37 § 1(c) if
“for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.
It also reiterates that, under certain circumstances, it may do so on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued.
The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Slovakia, 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‑V; and Fekiač and Fekiačová v. Slovakia, no. 39202/04, §§ 19-26, 10 November 2009).
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), the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of this application (see, for the relevant principles, Tahsin Acar v. Turkey [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; and also Haran v. Turkey, no. 25754/94, 26 March 2002). 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).
It should therefore be struck out of the list in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
Since the proceedings concerned are still pending before the domestic courts, the Court's strike-out decision is without prejudice to the use by the applicant of other remedies to obtain redress for any delay in the proceedings which may occur after the date of this decision.
For these reasons, the Court
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government's declaration and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides unanimously to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
Fatoş AracıGiovanni Bonello
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy