G.S.S., S.R.O. v. SLOVAKIA

FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 8221/23
G.S.S., S.R.O.
against Slovakia

(see appended table)

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 14 December 2023 as a Committee composed of:

 Krzysztof Wojtyczek, President,
 Lətif Hüseynov,
 Ivana Jelić, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 9 February 2023,

Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The applicant company’s details are set out in the appended table.

The applicant company was represented by Mr M. Kluka, a lawyer practising in Bratislava.

The applicant company’s complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings and under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of effectiveness of the relevant domestic remedy were communicated to the Slovak Government (“the Government”).

THE LAW

After unsuccessful friendly-settlement negotiations, the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by the complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.

The Government acknowledged the excessive length of civil proceedings. They offered to pay the applicant company the amount detailed in the appended table and invited the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. The amount would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision. In the event of failure to pay this amount within the above-mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on it, from the 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.

The applicant company was sent the terms of the Government’s unilateral declaration several weeks before the date of this decision. The Court has not received a response from the applicant company accepting the terms of the declaration.

The Court observes that Article 37 § 1 (c) enables it 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”.

Thus, it may strike out applications under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued (see, in particular, the Tahsin Acar v. Turkey judgment (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75‑77, ECHR 2003-VI).

The Court has established clear and extensive case-law concerning complaints relating to the excessive length of civil proceedings (see, for example, Obluk v. Slovakia, no. 69484/01, 20 September 2006).

Noting 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 in the part covered by the Government’s declaration (Article 37 § 1 (c)).

In the light of the above considerations, 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 that part of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine).

Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application may be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention (see Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).

In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list in this part.

Having regard to the facts of the case, the Government’s unilateral declaration and the Court’s decision to strike out the part of the application relating to the complaint under Article 6 § 1, the Court considers that the main legal question raised in the present application has been resolved. It concludes, therefore, that there is no need to examine separately the applicant company’s complaint under Article 13 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;

Decides to strike the part of the application, covered by the Government’s declaration, out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention;

Decides that there is no need to examine the remainder of the application.

Done in English and notified in writing on 18 January 2024.

 Viktoriya Maradudina Krzysztof Wojtyczek
 Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

Application raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention

(excessive length of civil proceedings)

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant