THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 64091/09
by Richard KLISKÝ
against Slovakia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 28 June 2011 as a Committee composed of:
Ineta Ziemele, President,
Ján Šikuta,
Kristina Pardalos, judges,
and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 27 November 2009,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
The applicant, Richard Kliský, is a Slovak national who was born in 1971 and lives in Bratislava. He was represented before the Court by Ms V. Danková, a lawyer practising in Bratislava. The Government of the Slovak Republic (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms M. Pirošíková.
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of the unfairness and the length of civil proceedings. He also alleged a violation of Articles 13, 17 and 18 of the Convention.
On 21 and 28 April 2011 the Court received friendly settlement declarations signed by the parties under which the applicant agreed to waive any further claims against Slovakia in respect of the facts giving rise to this application against an undertaking by the Government to pay him 10,900 euros. This sum 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 undertook 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.
THE LAW
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.
Marialena TsirliIneta Ziemele
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy