FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 24151/05
by Ján DUCHOŇ
against Slovakia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 4 December 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
SirNicolas Bratza, President,
MrJ. Casadevall,
MrG. Bonello,
MrK. Traja,
MrS. Pavlovschi,
MrJ. Šikuta,
MrsP. Hirvelä, judges,
and Mrs F. Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 13 June 2005,
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 observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Ján Duchoň, is a Slovak national who was born in 1934 and lives in Remeniny. The Government of the Slovak Republic (“the Government”) were represented by Ms. M. Bálintová, their Co-Agent.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 29 December 1994 the applicant filed an action for protection of his personal rights with the District Court in Vranov nad Topľou. He sought redress in respect of defamatory statements which the defendant had allegedly made about the applicant’s activity in the past.
On 6 November 2003 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s action.
On 15 February 2004 the applicant appealed. The file was transmitted to the Regional Court in Prešov on 30 March 2004.
On 14 December 2004 the Constitutional Court found that the District Court in Vranov nad Topľou had violated the applicant’s right to a hearing without unjustified delay.
The decision stated that the overall length of the proceedings was clearly inappropriate even if the case could be considered complex on the facts to some extent. The conduct of both the applicant and his representative had contributed to the length of the proceedings. As to the conduct of the District Court, the Constitutional Court found that it had failed to proceed with the case in an efficient manner. The Constitutional Court awarded SKK 30,000 (the equivalent of 770 euros at that time) to the applicant as compensation for non-pecuniary damage. It also ordered the District Court to reimburse the applicant’s costs.
On 23 March 2005 the Regional Court in Prešov quashed the first‑instance judgment of 6 November 2003 as it had not been established whether or not the defendant had defamed the applicant.
On 12 May 2005 the Regional Court transferred the case to the District Court in Prešov after the judges of the District Court in Vranov nad Topľou had confirmed that the defendant had been their colleague since 1 January 2004.
The District Court in Prešov held hearings on 9 November 2005, 20 January 2006 and 3 March 2006. It requested and obtained further documentary evidence during that period.
On 7 March 2006 the District Court in Prešov quashed the decision to exempt the applicant from the obligation to pay court fees. On 27 April 2006 the court of appeal upheld the decision of 7 March 2006.
In June and July 2006 the District Court asked the applicant whether he maintained his claim and to indicate the evidence he proposed to rely on. On 22 November 2006 the applicant’s representative replied that the applicant suffered from a serious illness preventing him from taking a position on the court’s request. On 6 February 2007 the applicant’s wife informed the District Court that the applicant was unable to attend hearings.
On 4 April 2007 the applicant’s lawyer informed the District Court that the applicant wished to pursue the case. The letter further stated that the lawyer had stopped representing the applicant due to a disagreement as to the way in which the representative should act.
The proceedings are pending.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings.
THE LAW
The applicant complained about the length of the above proceedings. He relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention which, in so far as relevant, provides as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
By letter dated 3 October 2007 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention. The declaration provided as follows:
“The Government acknowledge both the applicant’s status of the victim within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention and the unreasonable duration of the domestic proceedings in which the applicant was involved.
I, Miroslava Bálintová, the Co-Agent of the Government of the Slovak Republic before the European Court of Human Rights, declare that the Government offer to pay ex gratia to the applicant Mr Ján Duchoň the sum of EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros). This sum shall 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.
The Government would suggest that the above information might 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 undertake to pay to the applicant the declared sum within three months from the date of notification of the decision. This sum will be converted into Slovakian korunas at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and free of any taxes that may be applicable. 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. This payment will constitute final settlement of the case.”
In letters of 24 October and 8 November 2007 the applicant’s wife informed the Court that the applicant was being treated in hospital and that his health did not allow him to reply in person. In the letters the view was expressed that the sum mentioned in the Government’s declaration was unacceptably low.
The Court recalls that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. Article 37 § 1 (c) enables the Court in particular to strike a case out of its list if:
“for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.
The Court also recalls that under certain circumstances, it may strike out an application under Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued. To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (Tahsin Acar v. Turkey, [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI); Meriakri v. Moldova ((striking out), no. 53487/99, 1 March 2005); Swedish Transport Workers Union v. Sweden ((striking out), no. 53507/99, 18 July 2006) and Van Houten v. the Netherlands ((striking out), no. 25149/03, ECHR 2005‑IX).
The Court has established in a number of cases 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‑....). Furthermore, it has already had occasion to address complaints related to alleged breach of one’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time in cases against the Slovak Republic (see, for example, Kuril v. Slovakia, no. 63959/00, §§ 35-43, 3 October 2006; Rišková v. Slovakia, no. 58174/00, §§ 88-97, 22 August 2006 or Sika v. Slovakia, no. 2132/02, §§ 28-35, 13 June 2006).
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 the application (Article 37 § 1 (c)) (see, for the relevant principles, Tahsin Acar as cited above; and also Haran v. Turkey, no. 25754/94, judgment of 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).
Accordingly, Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it should be struck out of the list.
Since the proceedings concerning the applicant’s action are still pending before the domestic courts, the Court’s strike-out decision is without prejudice to use by the applicant company of Article 127 of the Constitution to obtain redress for any delay in the proceedings which may occur after the date of this decision.
For these reasons, the Court by a majority
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 to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
Fatoş Aracı Nicolas Bratza
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy