FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 42754/04
by Gabriela HEGYESYOVÁ
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 15 November 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 Gabriela Hegyesyová, is a Slovak national who was born in 1961 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.
On 18 November 1998 a third party sued the applicant for a sum of money before the Košice I Distict Court. The case was transferred to the Košice II District Court for reasons of jurisdiction.
On 29 January 1999 the Košice II District Court issued a payment order granting the plaintiff’s claim. It was served on the applicant on 3 March 1999. On 17 March 1999 the applicant filed an objection to it. As a result, the payment order was quashed and the District Court was required to establish the relevant facts of the case.
On 13 April 1999 the District Court ordered the applicant to pay court fees. On 9 May 1999 the applicant requested to be exempted from the obligation to pay the fees.
On 25 May 1999 the District Court asked the applicant to complete and return to it a form with information to enable it to decide on her request. On 23 June 1999 the applicant replied that the form sent to her did not relate to persons in her situation. She asked the District Court to send the relevant form to her.
On 5 March 2001 the District Court asked the applicant to submit a copy of her tax declaration for 1999. The applicant submitted the document to the District Court on 23 May 2001.
On 22 September 2003 the District Court asked the applicant to submit a copy of her tax declaration for 2002. The applicant submitted the document to the District Court on 31 October 2003.
On 5 November 2003 the District Court exempted the applicant from the obligation to pay court fees.
On 15 March 2004, in reply to the applicant’s complaint, the President of the District Court confirmed that the applicant had submitted relevant documents on 23 May 2001. However, further documents had been required which the applicant had submitted only on 31 October 2003.
On 28 May 2004 the applicant complained to the Constitutional Court that the Košice II District Court had violated her right under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to a hearing within a reasonable time.
On 3 June 2004 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded. The decision stated that the applicant had not shown that she had submitted the requested documents to the District Court at the latter’s request of 5 March 2001, as alleged by her.
On 11 June 2004 the Košice II District Court granted the plaintiff’s claim.
On 29 September 2004 the Regional Court in Košice quashed the first‑instance judgment. The decision was served on the parties in November and December 2004.
On 11 May 2007 the District Court adjourned the case until 4 September 2007.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained that her right under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to a hearing within a reasonable time was violated in the above proceedings.
THE LAW
On 4 July 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 4,000 (four thousand euros) to Ms Gabriela Hegyesyová 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 19 June 2007 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant:
“I, Gabriela Hegyesyová, the applicant, note that the Government of the Slovak Republic are prepared to pay me ex gratia the sum of EUR 4,000 (four thousand 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