FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 20756/06
by František DANIHEL
against Slovakia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 25 November 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Nicolas Bratza, President,
Giovanni Bonello,
David Thór Björgvinsson,
Ján Šikuta,
Päivi Hirvelä,
Ledi Bianku,
Nebojša Vučinić, judges,
and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 2 May 2006,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case.
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr František Danihel, is a Slovak national who was born in 1953 and lives in Bratislava. He was represented before the Court by Mr R. Toman, a lawyer practising in Bratislava. The Slovak Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs M. Pirošíková.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
1. Civil proceedings for payment
By an action filed with the Bratislava V District Court on 26 August 1996 the applicant requested payment of an amount of money he had lent to the defendant (the equivalent of around 31,000 euros). Up until 4 April 2001 the District Court, the Bratislava Regional Court and the Supreme Court examined issues mainly concerning payment of court fees, without taking a decision on the merits.
On 21 March 2003 the District Court allowed the action. The defendant appealed and the file was transferred to the Regional Court on 22 October 2003.
On 11 January 2005 the Regional Court quashed the judgment and remitted the case to the District Court.
On 28 June 2005 the District Court allowed the action.
The defendant died before the judgment could be served on him. As there was no estate and no heirs to continue the proceedings, on 15 February 2006 the District Court discontinued the proceedings.
The applicant appealed. On 31 July 2006 the Regional Court quashed the District Court’s decision of 15 February 2006 and remitted the case to the District Court.
After the decision of 28 June 2005 had been served on the defendant’s heirs, they filed an appeal. On 16 October 2007 the Regional Court quashed the decision of 28 June 2005 and discontinued the proceedings on the ground that the applicant had withdrawn the action.
2. Constitutional proceedings
On 5 October 2005 the Constitutional Court found that the District Court had violated the applicant’s right under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to a hearing within a reasonable time and his right under Article 48 § 2 of the Constitution to a hearing without unjustified delay.
The Constitutional Court held that the case was not complex. The applicant had contributed to the length of the proceedings due to his absence from several hearings. The Constitutional Court held that the overall duration of the proceedings of more than nine years was constitutionally unacceptable.
The Constitutional Court awarded the applicant SKK 20,000 (the equivalent of 515 euros at that time) as just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It also ordered the District Court to avoid any further delay in the proceedings and to reimburse the applicant’s legal costs.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings.
THE LAW
On 19 September 2008 the Court received the following declaration from the Government:
“I, Marica Pirošíková, Agent of the Government, declare that the Government of the Slovak Republic offer to pay ex gratia the sum of EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros) to Mr František Danihel 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 at the date of settlement in case of payment prior to 1 January 2009, 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 23 October 2008 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant:
“I, František Danihel, the applicant, note that the Government of the Slovak Republic are prepared to pay me ex gratia the sum of EUR 3,000 (three 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 at the date of settlement in case of payment prior to 1 January 2009, 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.
I accept the proposal and waive any further claims against Slovakia in respect of the facts giving rise to this application. I 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). 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.
Lawrence EarlyNicolas Bratza
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy