FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 32171/10
by Ján DRAHULA
against Slovakia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 14 December 2010 as a Committee composed of:
Lech Garlicki, President,
Ján Šikuta,
Vincent A. de Gaetano, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 12 May 2010,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
The application was lodged by Mr Ján Drahula, a Slovak national who was born in 1922 and lives in Suchá Hora. He was represented before the Court by Mr J. Šuvada, the applicant’s grandson, who also lives in Suchá Hora. The Government of the Slovak Republic (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs M. Pirošíková.
The applicant complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention about the length of civil proceedings which started on 15 December 1995 and are still pending.
On 22 and 23 November 2010 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 8,000 euros. This sum would be free of any taxes that might 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 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. 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 (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.
Fatoş AracıLech Garlicki
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy