FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 17727/10
by Ladislav HUSOVSKÝ
against Slovakia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 7 December 2010 as a Committee composed of:
David Thór Björgvinsson, President,
Päivi Hirvelä,
Mihai Poalelungi, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 16 March 2010,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
The application was lodged by Mr Ladislav Husovský, a Slovak national who was born in 1936 and lives in Humenné. He was represented before the Court by Mrs D. Komková, a lawyer practising in Prešov. The Government of the Slovak Republic (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs M. Pirošíková.
On 8 May 1996 the applicant lodged an action for rent payment with the Prešov District Court.
On 3 June 2004 the Constitutional Court found that the Prešov District Court had violated the applicant’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time. It ordered that the District Court pay to the applicant 20,000 Slovakian korunas (SKK) as just satisfaction, proceed without further delays and reimburse the applicant’s legal costs.
In June 2010 the proceedings were still pending before the first-instance court.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings had lasted too long.
Without specifying his complaint he also invoked Article 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12.
THE LAW
On 23 August 2010 the Court received the following declaration from the Government:
“I, Marica Pirošíková, Agent of the Government, declare that the Government of the Slovak Republic offer to pay ex gratia EUR 10,000 (ten thousand euros) to Mr Ladislav Husovský 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 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 11 August 2010 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant’s legal representative:
“I, Dáša Komková, the lawyer, note that the Government of the Slovak Republic are prepared to pay ex gratia the sum of EUR 10,000 (ten thousand euros) to Mr Ladislav Husovský 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 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.
Having consulted my client, I would inform you that he accepts the proposal and waives any further claims against Slovakia in respect of the facts giving rise to this application. He declares 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).
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Fatoş AracıDavid Thór Björgvinsson
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy