SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 76157/01
by Milan GALUS and Božena CIGÁNKOVÁ
against the Czech Republic
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 14 September 2004 as a Chamber composed of:
MrJ.-P. Costa, President,
MrA.B. Baka,
MrL. Loucaides,
MrK. Jungwiert,
MrV. Butkevych,
MrsW. Thomassen,
MrM. Ugrekhelidze, judges,
and Mrs S. Dollé, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 19 October 2001,
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 formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case.
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants, Mr Milan Galus and Božena Cigánková are two Czech nationals, born in 1923 and 1921 and living in Brno and Břeclav, respectively. They were represented before the Court by Mr J. Smetana, a lawyer practising in Brno. The respondent Government were represented by their Agent, Mr V. A. Schorm.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 13 March 1948 a factory owned by the applicants’ respective fathers was nationalized without any compensation. On 8 December 1948 the factory was transformed into Agrostroj Prostějov, a State owned company, and subsequently into Tranza Břeclav, a.s.
The second applicant requested Tranza Břeclav, a.s. and the Ministry of Finance, on 9 and 24 September 1991, to return the property to her. The first applicant followed the same procedure, pursuant to the Extra-Judicial Rehabilitation Act and the Transfer of the State’s Property to Other Persons Act.
As Tranza Břeclav, a.s. refused to do so, the applicants lodged civil actions with the Břeclav District Court (okresní soud) for restitution of the factory on 27 and 30 March 1992 respectively.
On 30 March 1992 A.G. and V.D., and on 31 March 1992 M.D., lodged civil actions for restitution of the same property.
On 17 June 1992 Tranza Břeclav, a.s. requested the District Court not to hold a hearing until the end of September 1992 in order to reach a friendly settlement.
On 14 June 1995 the District Court sent the observations of the defendant to the second applicant.
On 27 October 1995 E.K.G. lodged a civil action with the District Court for restitution of the factory.
On 21 November 1995 the District Court held a hearing at which it joined the restitution actions.
After having taken further procedural steps, the District Court stayed the proceedings, on 7 January 1999, until the inheritance proceedings after the death of V.D. were terminated.
Between 8 September 1999 and 10 October 2000 the District Court invited the applicants to complete their restitution claims, what they did, and inquired about the state of the inheritance proceedings.
On 15 February 2001 it decided to continue the proceedings with the legal successors of V.D.
On 3 and 23 April 2002 the Regional Court (krajský soud) notified its decision to the parties.
In the meantime, on 24 April 2001 the Constitutional Court (ústavní soud) had dismissed the applicants’ constitutional appeal (ústavní stížnost) of 14 March 2001 in which they had criticised the length of the proceedings.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants originally complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the length of the proceedings was excessive and, under Article 13 of the Convention, that they did not have an effective remedy at their disposal to accelerate the proceedings.
THE LAW
On 30 April 2004 the Court received the following declaration signed by the legal representative of the parties:
[Translation by the Government]
“The Government of the Czech Republic, represented before the European Court of Human Rights by its Agent Mr. Vít Alexander Schorm (“the Government”),
and
Mr. Milan Galus and Mrs. Božena Cigánková (“the Applicants”), represented by their counsel Mr. Jaroslav Smetana,
declare that:
1. they have reached a friendly settlement of case No. 76157/01 – Milan Galus and Božena Cigánková v. the Czech Republic (“the Application”);
2. the Government will pay to each Applicant an amount of 96,000 Czech crowns (in words “ninety-six thousand Czech crowns”) [about 3,056 euros], within three months from the date of the notification of the judgement delivered by the European Court of Human Rights (“the Court”) pursuant to Article 39 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”), to a bank account that the Applicants will specify to the Ministry of Justice without undue delay upon request;
3. the above-mentioned sum is to cover any damage that might have been caused to the Applicants by the Czech Republic through its authorities, including legal expenses;
4. if the above-mentioned amount is not paid within the designated time of three months from the date of the notification of the Court’s judgment, then from the expiry date, a simple interest on the amount shall be paid at an annual rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank plus three percentage points;
5. the Applicants waive any further claims against the Czech Republic based on the facts of the proceedings before the Court on the basis of the Application, and regard this friendly settlement as the final settlement of the Application;
6. neither the Government nor the Applicants will request that the case be referred to the Court’s Grand Chamber under Article 43 § 1 of the Convention after the delivery of the Court’s judgement under Article 39 of the Convention;
7. the friendly settlement of the Application according to this declaration may be subject to approval by the Government at its ministerial meeting; the Applicants take due note of this reservation.”
The Government have informed the Court of the decision of the Ministry of Justice not to have recourse to point 7 of the above declaration.
The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the further examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). Accordingly, the application to the case of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should be discontinued and the case struck out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
S. DolléJ.-P. Costa
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy