FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 19978/05
by Peter KAŽIMÍR and Martin KAŽIMÍR
against Slovakia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 15 May 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 25 May 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 formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants, Mr Peter Kažimír and Mr Martin Kažimír are brothers who were born in 1984 and 1986 respectively. They are Slovakian nationals and live in Košice. They were represented before the Court by Mr P. Jonáš, a lawyer practising in Trebišov. 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.
After the parents of the applicants had stopped living together, the applicants’ mother brought proceedings, on 24 August 1993, with a view to having the parental rights and maintenance of the applicants determined. In those proceedings the final decision on the outstanding maintenance was given by the court of appeal on 17 January 2005.
On 26 January 2005 the Constitutional Court found that the Košice I District Court had violated the applicants’ right to a hearing without unjustified delay. The case was not complex and the applicants had not contributed to the length of the proceedings. As a result of various procedural requests of the applicants’ parents, the case had been submitted to the court of appeal thirteen times for a period totalling four and a half years. The file had been twice submitted to the Supreme Court for a period exceeding three months. There had been undue delays in the proceedings as the District Court had failed to deal with the case in an appropriate manner.
As the applicants’ parents had significantly contributed to the overall length of the proceedings, the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction.
COMPLAINT
The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the length of the proceedings was excessive.
THE LAW
On 5 April 2007 the Court received the following declaration signed by the Agent of the Government:
“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 EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros) to each of the applicants (Mr Peter Kažimír and Mr Martin Kažimír) 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 April 2007 the Court received the following declaration from the applicants:
“We, Peter Kažimír and Martin Kažimír, the applicants, note that the Government of the Slovak Republic are prepared to pay to each of us the sum of EUR 3,000 (three 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.
We accept the proposal and waive any further claims against Slovakia in respect of the facts giving rise to this application. We 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 (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. EarlyNicolas Bratza
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy