FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 41484/04
by Peter KLADIVÍK and Michal KAŠIAR
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,
MrG. Bonello,
MrK. Traja,
MrS. Pavlovschi,
MrJ. Šikuta,
MrsP. Hirvelä, judges,
and Mr T.L. Early, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 4 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 declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 30 April 2007,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The first applicant, Mr Peter Kladivík, was born in 1965 and lives in Banská Štiavnica. The second applicant, Mr Michal Kašiar, was born in 1951 and lives in Dudince. They are Slovak nationals and they were represented before the Court by Mrs E. Michalenková, a lawyer practising in Banská Bystrica. 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 17 September 1997 the applicants sued five persons before the Regional Court in Banská Bystrica. They challenged the validity of several purchase contracts.
In November and December 1997 the defendants submitted their observations.
The Regional Court scheduled hearings for 22 April 1998 and 26 June 1998. In July 1998 two defendants submitted information. Subsequently the case was transferred to a different chamber.
The case was adjourned on 18 January 2000 at the request of one of the defendants as well as on 8 February 2000, at the request of the applicants. On the latter date the court was informed that the fifth defendant company had ceased to exist.
On 16 March 2000 the applicants, through their advocate, proposed that the proceedings be stayed. They explained that they had petitioned the General Prosecutor’s Office to file an extra-ordinary appeal on points of law on their behalf against decisions resulting in the deletion of the fifth defendant from the companies’ register.
On 20 March 2000 the Regional Court decided to stay the proceedings pending the determination of the applicants’ request for an extra-ordinary appeal on points of law to be filed on their behalf. On 12 September 2000 the Supreme Court upheld that decision.
In a letter dated 5 January 2001 the General Prosecutor’s Office informed the applicants that no reason had been found for filing an extra-ordinary remedy on their behalf.
On 28 February 2003 the Regional Court asked the applicants whether the proceedings on their petition had ended and whether they maintained their action.
On 17 March 2003 the applicants withdrew their action in respect of three of the defendants. On 18 March 2003, in view of the change in situation, they modified their action in that they claimed a sum of money from two natural persons.
On 19 February 2004 the Regional Court dismissed the applicants’ request for a modification of their action.
On 28 April 2004 the Regional Court discontinued the proceedings.
On 7 July 2004 the Constitutional Court found that the Regional Court in Banská Bystrica had violated the applicants’ right to a hearing without unjustified delay.
The decision stated that the complexity of the matter, the number of defendants as well as a change in their legal position had had an impact on the length of the proceedings. The applicants by their conduct had prolonged the proceedings by three years in that they had not informed the Regional Court of their own initiative that the reasons for which the proceedings had been stayed had fallen away. Similarly, their request of 18 March 2003 for the action to be modified required further examination by the Regional Court. The period between 18 March 2003 and 19 February 2004 could not, therefore, be imputed to that court. As to the conduct of the Regional Court, the Constitutional Court noted that it was responsible for delays totalling 16 months.
The Constitutional Court awarded SKK 15,000 (the equivalent of 377 euros at that time) to each of the applicants. It also ordered the Regional Court to reimburse the applicants’ costs incurred in the constitutional proceedings.
COMPLAINT
The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings.
THE LAW
The applicants complained about the length of the proceedings. They relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention the relevant part of which provides:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
By letter dated 30 April 2007 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
The declaration provided as follows:
“The Government acknowledge both the applicants’ status of victims within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention and the unreasonable duration of the domestic proceedings in which the applicants were involved.
I, Marica Pirošíková, the Agent of the Government of the Slovak Republic before the European Court of Human Rights, declare that the Government offer to pay ex gratia EUR 1,200 (one thousand two hundred euros) to each of the applicants (Messrs Peter Kladivík and Michal Kašiar). This sum shall cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage together with any costs and expenses incurred by the applicants with respect to the violation of their right under the Convention.
The Government would suggest that the above information might be accepted by the Court as “any other reason” justifying the striking out of the case of the Court’s list of cases, as referred to in Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
In the event of the Court’s decision pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the Convention, the Government undertake to pay to each of the applicants the declared sum within three months from the date of notification of the decision. This sum will be converted into Slovakian korunas at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and free of any taxes that may be applicable. 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. This payment will constitute final settlement of the case.”
The applicants were invited to submit their comments on the Government’s declaration by 22 May 2007. In a registered letter dated 5 June 2007 their attention was drawn to the fact that the period allowed for submission of their comments had expired and that no extension of time had been requested.
In a letter dated 10 July 2007 and delivered to the Court on 18 July 2007 the applicants submitted that they had suffered a substantial pecuniary damage as a result of the length of the proceedings. They relied on a purchase contract of 1993 and on a book-keeping record established in March 2006.
The Court recalls that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. Article 37 § 1 (c) enables the Court in particular 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”.
The Court also recalls that under certain circumstances, it may strike out an application under Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued. To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (Tahsin Acar v. Turkey, [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI); Meriakri v. Moldova ((striking out), no. 53487/99, 1 March 2005); Swedish Transport Workers Union v. Sweden ((striking out), no. 53507/99, 18 July 2006) and Van Houten v. the Netherlands ((striking out), no. 25149/03, ECHR 2005‑IX).
The Court has established in a number of cases its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see, for example, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII; Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 69-98, ECHR 2006‑....). Furthermore, it has already had occasion to address complaints related to alleged breach of one’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time in cases against the Slovak Republic (see, for example, Kuril v. Slovakia, no. 63959/00, §§ 35-43, 3 October 2006; Rišková v. Slovakia, no. 58174/00, §§ 88-97, 22 August 2006 or Sika v. Slovakia, no. 2132/02, §§ 28-35, 13 June 2006).
Having regard to the nature of 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 (Article 37 § 1 (c)) (see, for the relevant principles, Tahsin Acar as cited above; and also Haran v. Turkey, no. 25754/94, judgment of 26 March 2002).
As to the documents which the applicants sent to the Court on 10 July 2007, the Court notes that these were submitted outside the time-limit set by the President of the Chamber and that no extension had been requested. In any event, the Court does not consider that those belated submissions alter its view that the amount of compensation proposed by the Government is adequate in the circumstances.
In light of the above considerations, and in particular given the clear and extensive case-law on the topic, 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 the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
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
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
T.L. EarlyNicolas Bratza
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy