FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 16350/03
by Elena FARKAŠOVÁ
against Slovakia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 20 February 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
SirNicolas Bratza, President,
MrJ. Casadevall,
MrG. Bonello,
MrK. Traja,
MrS. Pavlovschi,
MrJ. Šikuta,
MrsP. Hirvelä, judges,
and Mr T.L. Early, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 5 May 2003,
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, Mrs Elena Farkašová, is a Slovakian national who was born in 1941 and lives in Bratislava.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 3 April 1997 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Bratislava III District Court. She claimed a judicial determination of her property rights in respect of several plots of land.
In 2002, the applicant filed a constitutional complaint concerning the length of the proceedings in issue. She claimed just satisfaction in an amount of 200,000 Slovak korunas (SKK) alleging that the length of the proceedings was excessive.
On 16 October 2002, the Constitutional Court found a violation of the applicant’s right to have her claim determined without unjustified delay. The decision stated that, at that time, the proceedings had been pending for more than 5 years and 6 months and that the District Court was responsible for unjustified delays totalling 4 years and 1 month. The case was not complex and the applicant had not contributed to the length of the proceedings in a substantial manner. The Constitutional Court granted the applicant SKK 30,000 (the equivalent of approximately € 750) as just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage. It also ordered the Bratislava III District Court to proceed with the case without unjustified delay in the future.
On 8 April 2004 the applicant informed the Court that the proceedings were still pending before the Bratislava III District Court and that a hearing had been scheduled for 20 April 2004. The applicant further stated that she had discovered that the evidence included in the file had been manipulated by an administrative authority. Considering that the action lacked any prospects of success in such circumstances, the applicant withdrew her action on 31 March 2004.
On 24 April 2004 the District Court discontinued the proceedings on the ground that the plaintiff had withdrawn the action.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings concerning her above action.
THE LAW
In a letter dated 9 November 2006 the applicant stated, in reply to the observations submitted by the respondent Government, that her application had lost any justification after she had withdrawn her action.
In a different letter dated 21 January 2007 the applicant stated that, in view of the situation at the domestic level, she could not maintain the application and claim just satisfaction before the Court.
The Court notes that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. 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 would require the examination of the application to be continued.
Accordingly, Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it should be struck out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
T.L. Early Nicolas Bratza
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy