FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 2305/07
by Miroslava CUPEROVÁ and Jana CUPEROVÁ
against Slovakia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 10 May 2007 as a Chamber composed of
SirNicolas Bratza, President,
MrJ. Casadevall,
MrS. Pavlovschi,
MrL. Garlicki,
MsL. Mijović,
MrJ. Šikuta,
MrsP. Hirvelä, judges,
and Mr T.L. Early, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 9 January 2007,
Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having regard to the decision to grant priority to the above application under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants, Ms Jana Cuperová and Ms Miroslava Cuperová, are twins who were born in 1994. They are Slovakian nationals and live in Košice. They were represented before the Court by Mrs I. Rajtáková, a lawyer practising in Košice. The Government of the Slovak Republic (“the Government”) were represented by Mrs M. Pirošíková, their Agent.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 6 September 1995 the applicants’ mother requested the Košice II District Court to determine the applicants’ paternity and their maintenance entitlement.
On 5 May 2004 the Constitutional Court found that the Košice II District Court had violated the applicants’ right to a hearing within a reasonable time. The case was of a certain factual complexity as it was necessary to determine the applicants’ paternity. The Constitutional Court found that by her conduct the applicants’ mother had not contributed to the length of the proceedings. What was at stake for the applicants called for special diligence.
As to the conduct of the District Court, it had remained inactive from 23 June 1997 to 21 January 1998 and from 24 March 1998 to 18 May 1999. While it was true that the District Court had scheduled ten hearings in the case, it had not dealt with the case efficiently. In particular, it had ordered a DNA analysis of the defendant’s blood four and a half years after the proceedings had been brought; during the three years that followed the District Court had limited itself to asking the expert, by three letters, to explain the reasons why the expert opinion had not been prepared. The District Court had not availed itself of all means available, including the imposition of a procedural fine on the defendant, with a view to ensuring progress in the case. In sum, the District Court had not paid due attention to the case and it was responsible for delays totalling more than five years.
In its judgment the Constitutional Court ordered the District Court to proceed with the case without further delay and to reimburse the applicants’ costs in the constitutional proceedings. It also awarded each of the applicants SKK 50,000 (the equivalent of 1,242 euros at that time) as just satisfaction.
On 5 May 2004 the Košice II District Court delivered a judgment against which the applicants appealed on 14 October 2004.
On 5 August 2005 the court of appeal quashed the first-instance judgment to the extent that it concerned the applicants’ maintenance and costs of the proceedings.
On 27 September 2005 the District Court issued an injunction at the request of the applicants’ mother.
The defendant did not appear on 14 December 2005. The District Court imposed a procedural fine of SKK 20,000 on him. On 31 May 2006 the court of appeal reduced the amount of the fine.
An expert opinion was submitted on 11 November 2006.
A hearing in the case was scheduled for 31 January 2007.
COMPLAINT
The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings.
THE LAW
On 21 March 2007 the Court received the following declaration signed by the Agent of the Government:
“I, Marica Pirošíková, the Agent of the Government of the Slovak Republic before the European Court of Human Rights, declare that the Government of the Slovak Republic offer to pay 4,000 (four thousand) euros to each of the applicants (Ms Jana Cuperová and Ms Miroslava Cuperová) with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.
This sum, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be converted into Slovakian korunas at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake 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. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.”
On 29 March 2007 the applicants’ representative submitted the following declaration to the Court:
“We, Jana Cuperová and Miroslava Cuperová, the applicants, note that the Government of the Slovak Republic are prepared to pay to each of us the sum of 4,000 (four thousand) euros with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.
This sum, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be converted into Slovakian korunas at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 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.
We accept the proposal and waive any further claims against Slovakia in respect of the facts giving rise to this application. We declare that this constitutes a final resolution of the case.”
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 (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). Accordingly, Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it should be struck out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
T.L. EarlyNicolas Bratza
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy