FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 35324/05
by GE MONEY BANK GmbH
against Slovakia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 11 September 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
SirNicolas Bratza, President,
MrJ. Casadevall,
MrS. Pavlovschi,
MrL. Garlicki,
MsL. Mijović,
MrJ. Šikuta,
MrsP. Hirvelä, judges,
and MrsF. Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 23 September 2005,
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 2 July 2007,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, GE Money Bank GmbH, is a limited liability company with its seat in Vienna (Austria). It was represented before the Court by Mr Z. Ludik, a lawyer practising in Bratislava. 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.
On 14 February 2000 the applicant company brought execution proceedings against several persons following a company’s failure to comply with its contractual obligations. The execution proceedings were initiated on the basis of a document established by a notary public.
On 14 March 2000 the District Court in Čadca authorised an executions officer to proceed with the enforcement of the debt.
In June and July 2000 several defendants filed objections.
On 13 May 2002 the District Court decided on the objections concluding that the execution was inadmissible.
On 24 June 2002 the applicant company appealed.
On 1 July 2002 the District Court discontinued the proceedings on the ground that its decision of 13 May 2002 had become final on 28 June 2002.
On 3 September 2002 the applicant company appealed against the decision to discontinue the proceedings.
On 30 December 2003 the court of appeal quashed both the decision of 13 May 2002 and the decision of 1 July 2002 as being erroneous. The decisions of the court of appeal were served on the applicant on 20 April 2004.
On 20 October 2004 the Constitutional Court found that the District Court in Čadca had violated the right of the applicant company to a hearing without unjustified delay. The decision stated that the District Court had failed to proceed with the case in an appropriate manner.
The Constitutional Court awarded SKK 50,000 (the equivalent of 1,250 euros) to the applicant company as just satisfaction. It ordered the District Court to proceed with the case without further delay and to reimburse the costs incurred by the applicant company.
On 17 January 2005 the District Court dismissed the objections to the execution filed by the wife of one of the defendants.
On 13 May 2005 the applicant was invited to submit comments on the objections of two other defendants.
On 30 December 2006 the District Court accepted the objections filed by two defendants. By the same decision the District Court discontinued the execution proceedings in respect of the first defendant, a legal person which had been deleted from the companies’ register in the meantime.
On 7 February 2007 the applicant company appealed.
The proceedings are pending.
COMPLAINT
1. The applicant company complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that its right to a hearing within a reasonable time had been violated.
2. Under Article 13 of the Convention the applicant company complained that it had no effective remedy at its disposal.
THE LAW
The applicant company complained about the length of the proceedings and that it had no effective remedy at its disposal. Its representative relied on Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention which, in so far as relevant, provide as follows:
Article 6 §1
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
Article 13
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”
By letter dated 2 July 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 acknowledge 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 of the Slovak Republic offer to pay ex gratia EUR 2,100 (two thousand one hundred euros) to GE Money Bank GmbH. This sum shall cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage together with any costs and expenses incurred by the applicant company with respect to the violation of its 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.”
In a letter of 19 July 2007 the applicant’s representative expressed the view that the sum mentioned in the Government’s declaration was unacceptably low.
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.
Since the proceedings concerning the applicant’s action are still pending before the domestic courts, the Court’s strike-out decision is without prejudice to use by the applicant company of Article 127 of the Constitution to obtain redress for any delay in the proceedings which may occur after the date of this decision.
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.
Fatoş AracıNicolas Bratza
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy