FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 27014/04
by Katarína DUŠÁKOVÁ and Bore JANESKI
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,
MrS. Pavlovschi,
MrL. Garlicki,
MsL. Mijović,
MrJ. Šikuta,
MrsP. Hirvelä, judges,
and Mrs F. Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 7 July 2004,
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,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants, Ms Katarína Dušáková (the first applicant) and Mr Bore Janeski (the second applicant) are Slovakian nationals who were born in 1964 and 1960 respectively. They reside at the same address in Košice. The Government of the Slovak Republic (“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. Proceedings on the applicants’ action of 13 November 1995
On 13 November 1995 the applicants claimed the payment of a sum of money before the Košice II District Court.
On 18 December 1997 the Regional Court in Košice excluded the first‑instance judges and transferred the case to the District Court in Trebišov. On 29 October 1999 the Regional Court in Košice excluded also the judges of the District Court in Trebišov. The case was transferred to the District Court in Michalovce. The judges of the latter court were also excluded, on 28 April 2000, and the case was transferred to the District Court in Rožňava which received the file on 10 July 2000. On 21 August 2000 the Regional Court in Košice was asked to determine whether the judges of the District Court in Rožňava were biased. Subsequently the Supreme Court found that the judges of the Regional Court in Košice were to be excluded. On 31 May 2001 the Regional Court in Banská Bystrica found that only three judges of the District Court in Rožňava were excluded from dealing with the case.
The first hearing before the District Court in Rožňava was scheduled for 26 July 2001. The case was adjourned due to the absence of the applicants and one defendant.
None of the parties appeared before the District Court on 20 September 2001, 4 October 2001 and 22 October 2001.
On 24 October 2001 the applicants’ representative informed the court that the first defendant had died.
The District Court, after having consulted the inheritance file, scheduled hearings for 28 February 2002 (at which only the second defendant appeared) and 25 March 2002.
Subsequently a guardian was appointed for a defendant who was a minor. The District Court asked for a criminal file which it needed to consult.
A hearing was held on 14 October 2002.
On 12 November 2002 the file was sent to the District Court in Žilina at the latter’s request. The District Court in Rožňava repeatedly asked for the file to be returned to it. It received the file on 14 January 2004.
A hearing was scheduled for 15 March 2004.
On 20 January 2004 the applicants complained to the Constitutional Court about the length of the proceedings before the Rožňava District Court. They also complained that the proceedings as a whole had lasted more than 8 years.
On 31 March 2004 the Constitutional Court found that the Rožňava District Court had violated the applicants’ right to a hearing without unjustified delays. It ordered the District Court to proceed with the case without any further delay. Considering that its finding provided appropriate just satisfaction to the applicants in the circumstances of the case, it dismissed their claims for compensation for non-pecuniary damage and for reimbursement of the costs incurred in the constitutional proceedings.
The District Court gave a judgment on the applicants’ action on 24 March 2005. The applicants appealed on 17 May 2005.
On 19 September 2005 the court of appeal returned the case to the District Court as it was not clear whether its judgment had been served on one of the defendants.
The District Court re-submitted the case to the court of appeal on 18 January 2006. The court of appeal determined the case on 27 June 2006. Its judgment became final on 8 August 2006.
2. Proceedings on the first applicant’s action of 5 September 1995
On 1 March 1995 the Tax Office Košice II increased the sum which the first applicant was obliged to pay as income tax. On 4 July 1995 the Central Tax Office upheld that decision.
On 5 September 1995 the first applicant challenged the decision of the Central Tax Office before the Supreme Court.
On 29 September 1995 the Supreme Court discontinued the proceedings on the ground that the applicant had not paid court fees.
On 12 April 1996 the first applicant informed the Supreme Court that she had not been staying at her address at the time when she had been requested to pay court fees. On 18 December 1997 the Supreme Court quashed its decision to discontinue the proceedings.
The first hearing in the case was held on 28 January 1998.
On 17 February 2003 the case was assigned to a different chamber.
On 21 February 2003 the Supreme Court quashed the administrative decision in issue. Its judgment became final on 6 March 2003.
On 26 November 2003 the Constitutional Court found that the Supreme Court had violated the first applicant’s right to a hearing without unjustified delay. It held that its finding in itself provided appropriate just satisfaction to the applicant. It therefore dismissed her claim in that respect. It ordered the Supreme Court to reimburse the costs of the proceedings to the first applicant.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention about the length of their proceedings and about the absence of an effective remedy in that respect.
THE LAW
By letter dated 15 June 2007 the Government’s observations were sent to the applicants, who were requested to submit any observations together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 27 July 2007.
By letter dated 26 September 2007, sent by registered post, the applicants were notified that the period allowed for submission of their observations had expired on 27 July 2007 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicants’ attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. A postal delivery report (avis de réception) was returned by the postal services to the Court indicating that the first applicant had received this letter on 10 October 2007. No response has been received from the applicants.
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicants may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue their application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of the case.
In view of the above, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 and 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 Aracı Nicolas Bratza
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy