FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 21175/05
by Eva KLISKÁ
against Slovakia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 11 September 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
SirNicolas Bratza, President,
MrJ. Casadevall,
MrS. Pavlovschi,
MrL. Garlicki,
MsL. Mijović,
MrJ. Šikuta,
MrsP. Hirvelä, judges,
and MrsF. Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 2 June 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 applicant, Ms Eva Kliská, is a Slovak national who was born in 1942 and lives in Bratislava. 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 30 September 1994 the applicant filed an action with the Bratislava III District Court. She claimed that her name had been erroneously changed in the register following her marriage.
Between 1994 and August 2001 courts at three levels examined the question as to which court had jurisdiction to deal with the case. It was ultimately decided that the case fell to be examined by the Bratislava III District Court. During that period the applicant modified her claim several times.
On 30 January 2003 the Bratislava III District Court allowed the applicant’s claim. In March 2004 the court of appeal quashed the first-instance judgment.
On 2 March 2005 the Constitutional Court found that the Bratislava III District Court had violated the applicant’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time. It held that the case was not complex. It had taken almost 7 years to determine which court had jurisdiction to deal with the case. The applicant had significantly contributed to the length of the proceedings. In particular, she had modified her claim and her submissions had been unclear. The Bratislava III District Court had remained inactive for approximately 28 months, and it had not dealt with the case in an efficient manner.
The Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction as she had contributed to the length of the proceedings. It ordered the District Court to proceed with the case without further delay and to reimburse the applicant’s costs.
There was a change in District Court judges dealing with the case on 9 May 2005, 3 May 2006 and 26 May 2006.
In July and September 2006 the District Court asked the parties to propose the evidence to be taken. It scheduled five hearings between 7 November 2006 and 19 April 2007.
On the latter date the District Court delivered a judgment granting the applicant’s claim.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings.
THE LAW
On 21 August 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 8,500 (eight thousand five hundred euros) to Ms Eva Kliská 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 the same day the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant:
“I, Eva Kliská, the applicant, note that the Government of the Slovak Republic are prepared to pay me ex gratia the sum of EUR 8,500 (eight thousand five hundred 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).
In view of the above, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and 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 AracıNicolas Bratza
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy