THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 27950/10
Michal BENEDIK
against Slovakia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 7 March 2014 as a Committee composed of:
Dragoljub Popović, President,
Ján Šikuta,
Iulia Antoanella Motoc, judges,
and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 10 May 2010,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Michal Benedik, is a Slovak national, who was born in 1946 and lives in Križovany nad Dudváhom. He was represented before the Court by Mr M. Benedik, a lawyer practising in Bratislava.
The Slovak Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms M. Pirošíková.
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of his civil proceedings.
On 25 September 2013 and 6 December 2013 the Court received friendly settlement declarations signed by the parties under which the applicant agreed to waive any further claims against Slovakia in respect of the facts giving rise to this application against an undertaking by the Government to pay him 5,100 euros to cover any pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses. This sum will be free of any taxes that may be applicable and it will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on it, from the 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. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.
THE LAW
The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no reasons to justify a continued examination of the application. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 39 of the Convention.
Marialena TsirliDragoljub Popović
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy