FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 14081/03
by Jaroslav FELBERT
against Slovakia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 19 June 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
SirNicolas Bratza, President,
MrJ. Casadevall,
MrS. Pavlovschi,
MrL. Garlicki,
MsL. Mijović,
MrJ. Šikuta,
MrsP. Hirvelä, judges,
and Mr T.L. Early, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 25 March 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 declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 26 April 2007 and the applicant’s reply to that declaration,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Jaroslav Felbert, is a Slovak national who was born in 1950 and lives in Košice. He was represented before the Court by Mrs M. Knopová, a lawyer practising 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. Civil proceedings brought by the applicant
On 29 November 1993 the applicant sued two individuals. He claimed that the defendants should return his car to him or pay compensation for it.
On 3 February 1994 one of the defendants counter-claimed that the applicant should pay a sum for the repair of the car.
The second defendant failed to appear at hearings on 17 October 1994 and 1 December 1994. The Košice I District Court imposed a procedural fine on him on the latter date. Both defendants failed to appear on 9 January 1995 and 16 February 1995.
On 21 February 1995 and on 12 April 1995 the applicant submitted further information to the District Court.
On 10 April 1995 the case had to be adjourned again due to the absence of one of the defendants.
On 5 June 1995 the Košice I District Court dismissed the action to the extent that it concerned one of the defendants. It further decided to determine the claim in respect of the other defendant and the latter’s counter-claim in a separate set of proceedings. The subsequent proceedings before the District Court were accordingly conducted under a separate file number (15 C 616/95).
The District Court started dealing with the case on 13 September 1995. Between that date and 10 February 1997 three hearings were held and an expert opinion was obtained. The applicant modified his action.
On 10 February 1997 the applicant disagreed with the conclusion of an expert. The following hearing was scheduled for 15 October 1998.
In two judgments given on 15 and 20 October 1998 respectively the District Court dismissed the applicant’s claim and discontinued the proceedings on the defendant’s counter-claim.
On 9 November 1998 the applicant appealed. On 16 November 1998 the District Court ordered the applicant to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings. The file was submitted to the court of appeal on 5 January 1999.
On 28 March 2000 the Regional Court in Košice quashed the relevant parts of the first-instance judgment. It also quashed the decision of 16 November 1998 on the costs of the appeal proceedings. The file was returned to the District Court on 6 June 2000.
The defendant failed to appear on 15 November 2000. In January 2001 the District Court, with the assistance of the police and administrative authorities, established the address of the defendant.
The District Court adjourned the case on 25 April 2001 and 31 May 2001. On the latter date it decided to obtain the opinion of an expert on the value of the applicant’s car. An expert was appointed on 16 July 2001. The file was transmitted to him on 10 October 2001. The expert submitted his opinion to the District Court on 24 April 2002. On 25 May 2002 the applicant submitted his comments on the opinion.
In June 2003 the District Court asked an authority to establish the defendant’s whereabouts.
A hearing was held on 15 July 2003. The defendant and an expert were absent. The court imposed a procedural fine on the applicant for misconduct. It also fined the expert for his failure to appear.
Another hearing was held on 25 September 2003. The applicant proposed that a witness be heard. On 23 October 2003 the District Court adjourned the case at the request of the applicant who had health problems.
Hearings were scheduled for 12 February 2004 and 18 March 2004. On the latter date the District Court gave a judgment on the merits which became final on 25 May 2004.
In a decision of 14 June 2004 the District Court corrected a mistake in the heading of its judgment.
2. Proceedings before the Constitutional Court
a) Petitions of 19 November 1997 and 18 February 1998
On 10 December 1997 and on 18 March 1998 respectively the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s petitions in which he complained about the length of the proceedings. The Constitutional Court held that the complaint was manifestly ill-founded.
b) Complaint of 27 May 2002
On 27 May 2002 the applicant filed a complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution, enacted with effect from 1 January 2002.
On 19 February 2003 the Constitutional Court delivered a judgment concluding that the Košice I District Court had violated the applicant’s right to a hearing without unjustified delay in proceedings 15 C 616/95. It ordered the Košice I District Court to proceed with the case without any further delay and awarded the applicant SKK 20,000 (the equivalent of approximately 500 euros) as just satisfaction. The Constitutional Court also ordered the District Court to reimburse the fees of the applicant’s lawyer.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings concerning his action of 29 November 1993.
THE LAW
The applicant complained about the length of the proceedings. He relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention the relevant part of which provides:
“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 26 April 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 ... reiterate – by way of unilateral declaration – their acknowledgement of both the applicant’s status as a 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 ex gratia to the applicant Mr Jaroslav Felbert 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.”
The applicant in his written reply dated 21 May 2007 requested the Court to reject the Government’s initiative on the basis that the compensation proposed was insufficient.
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.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
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.
T.L. EarlyNicolas Bratza
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy