FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 29953/04
by Daniela GREGUŠOVÁ
against Slovakia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 28 August 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 10 August 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 formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Ms Daniela Gregušová, is a Slovak national who was born in 1959 and lives 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 concerning the applicant’s action of 20 November 1996
On 20 November 1996 the applicant and another person sued the Košice Housing Company for a reduction of rent.
On 26 May 1997 the Košice II District Court asked the plaintiffs to submit their claim in accordance with the formal requirements. The plaintiffs complied with that request on 13 August 1997.
The defendant submitted observations in reply on 15 October 1997. Those observations were delivered to the plaintiffs in July 1998.
On 22 March 1999 the District Court adjourned the case.
There was a change in the judges dealing with the case on 12 July 1999 and 2 October 2000.
Between June 2001 and December 2001 the District Court sent documents to the parties.
On 1 March 2002 the District Court discontinued the proceedings in respect of the claim of the second plaintiff.
On 16 April 2003 the case was transferred to a different chamber of the District Court.
On 28 January 2004 the Constitutional Court found that the Košice II District Court had violated the applicant’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time.
The decision stated that the case was not complex and that the applicant, by her conduct, had contributed to the length of the proceedings between 20 November 1996 and 13 August 1997. The District Court had remained inactive between June 1999 and 23 August 2001 as well as between 26 April 2002 and 17 October 2003, that is for three and a half years.
In its judgment the Constitutional Court ordered the District Court to avoid further delays in the proceedings. It awarded 35,000 Slovak korunas (the equivalent of 863 euros at that time) to the applicant as compensation for non-pecuniary damage and ordered the District Court to reimburse the applicant’s costs.
Subsequently, in the course of 2004, the District Court scheduled several hearings in the case. In a judgment given on 18 February 2005 it dismissed the applicant’s claim. On 21 April 2005 the applicant appealed.
On 14 October 2005 the court of appeal quashed the District Court’s judgment.
After having scheduled two hearings the District Court gave its second judgment in the case on 14 September 2006.
The applicant appealed and the proceedings are pending before the court of appeal.
2. Proceedings concerning the applicant’s action of 1999
The applicant claimed movable property from an individual.
On 7 March 2001 the Košice II District Court dismissed the action. On 20 February 2002 the Regional Court in Košice upheld that judgment.
On 21 May 2002 the applicant petitioned the General Prosecutor’s Office to file an extra-ordinary appeal on points of law on her behalf.
On 25 August 2003 the General Prosecutor’s Office informed the applicant that the request had been transmitted to the Regional Prosecutor’s Office in Košice, which had dismissed it on 8 August 2002. The applicant received the letter of the Regional Prosecutor’s Office on 10 March 2004.
On 4 November 2003 the applicant filed a complaint with the Constitutional Court. She alleged that the General Prosecutor’s Office and the Regional Prosecutor’s Office in Košice had violated her constitutional right to a hearing by an independent and impartial authority.
On 11 February 2004 the Constitutional Court rejected the complaint as having been lodged outside the statutory two months’ time-limit. It noted that the post had returned the letter of 8 August 2002 to the sender as the applicant had not picked it up. The Constitutional Court concluded that, in accordance with the relevant law, that letter was to be considered as having been served on the applicant on 18 August 2002.
The applicant submitted that she had not been notified about any attempt to serve the letter on her.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that (i) the length of the proceedings concerning her action of 20 November 1996 had been excessive and (ii) her right to a fair hearing by an impartial tribunal had been violated in the proceedings related to her action for the return of movable property.
THE LAW
On 26 June 2007 the Court received the following declaration signed by the Government’s Agent:
“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 1,800 (one thousand eight hundred euros) to Ms Daniela Gregušová with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.
This sum, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be converted into Slovakian korunas at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 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. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.”
On 2 July 2007 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant:
“I, Daniela Gregušová, the applicant, note that the Government of the Slovak Republic are prepared to pay me ex gratia the sum of EUR 1,800 (one thousand eight hundred euros) with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.
This sum, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be converted into Slovakian korunas at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. From the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
I accept the proposal and waive any further claims against Slovakia in respect of the facts giving rise to this application. I declare that this constitutes a final resolution of the case.”
The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no reasons to justify a continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). 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