THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 69343/11
Dušan ĎURĎOVIČ and Mira TRANČĺKOVÁ
against Slovakia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 12 March 2013 as a Committee composed of:
Luis López Guerra, President,
Ján Šikuta,
Nona Tsotsoria, judges,
and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 4 November 2011,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 7 December 2012 requesting the Court to strike part of the application out of the list of cases and the applicants’ reply to that declaration,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The first applicant, Mr D. Ďurďovič, is a Czech national who was born in 1942 and lives in Hodonín. The second applicant, Ms M. Trančíková, is a Slovak national who was born in 1939 and lives in Bratislava. They were represented before the Court by Mr J. Holič, a lawyer practising in Bratislava.
The Government of the Slovak Republic (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms M. Pirošíková.
The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of civil proceedings and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, about the alleged violation of their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions.
The part of the application concerning the length of the proceedings with relation to the first applicant had been communicated to the Government.
THE LAW
A. Alleged violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
The applicants complained about the length of the civil proceedings which they initiated on 30 September 1997. They relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
1. As regards the complaint of the first applicant
After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 7 December 2012 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by this part of the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the relevant part of the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
The declaration provided as follows:
“The Government acknowledge both the [first] 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, Marica Pirošíková, the Agent of the Government of the Slovak Republic before the European Court of Human Rights, declare that the Government offer to pay to Mr Dušan Ďurďovič, the sum of EUR 2,673 (two thousand six hundred seventy three euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the [first] applicant.
The Government would suggest that the above information 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 [first] applicant the declared sum within the three months from the date of notification of the decision. 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 the final settlement of the case.”
By a letter of 10 January 2013, the first applicant indicated that he was not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration.
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”.
It also recalls that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application under Article 37 § 1(c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicants wish 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); WAZA Spółka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.) no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.) no. 28953/03).
The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Slovakia, 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; Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, §§ 178-227, ECHR 2006‑V; Majewski v. Poland, no. 52690/99, 11 October 2005; Rapoš v. Slovakia, no. 25763/02, §§ 32-34, 20 May 2008; Bič v. Slovakia, no. 23865/03, §§ 39-41, 4 November 2008 or Komár v. Slovakia, no. 25951/06, §§ 30-33, 26 October 2010).
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 this part of the application (Article 37 § 1(c)).
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 this part of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application could be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention (Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike this part of the application out of the list.
2. As regards the complaint of the second applicant
The Court notes that the second applicant initiated the civil proceedings together with the first applicant on 30 September 1997 but withdrew her civil claim on 29 September 2009. Considering that the application was lodged on 4 November 2011, it follows that the second applicant has failed to respect the time‑limit of six months laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention.
It follows that this part of the application must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
B. Alleged violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
The applicants also complained of a violation of their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions.
Having regard to all the evidence in its possession, and in so far as it has jurisdiction to examine the allegations, the Court has not found any appearance of a breach of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention or its Protocols.
It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1, 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration under Article 37 § 1 of the Convention 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, to the extent that it concerns the first applicant’s complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Marialena TsirliLuis López Guerra
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy