FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 39722/04
by Edita KMEŤOVÁ
against Slovakia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 10 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 21 October 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 formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Ms Edita Kmeťová, is a Slovak national who was born in 1954 and lives in Poprad. 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.
1. Proceedings concerning the applicant’s action of 1994
On 28 January 1994 the applicant filed an action with the District Court in Poprad. She sought the distribution of her and her ex-husband’s marital property.
On 2 June 2004 the Constitutional Court found that the Poprad District Court had violated the applicant’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time in the above proceedings. The length of the proceedings could not be attributed to the complexity of the case. The applicant by her conduct had significantly contributed to the length of the proceedings. The District Court had not efficiently proceeded with the case. Unjustified delays had occurred from 16 January 1995 to 16 May 1995, from 6 September 1995 to 30 April 1996, from 18 October 1996 to 23 January 1998 as well as from 25 October 2001 to 19 November 2003. The Constitutional Court ordered the District Court to avoid further delays in the proceedings and to reimburse the applicant’s costs. It dismissed her claim for just satisfaction.
In a judgment of 30 April 2004 the District Court in Poprad ruled on the distribution of the property in issue.
On 14 October 2004 the applicant appealed.
On 18 January 2006 the court of appeal modified the first-instance judgment.
2. Proceedings concerning the applicant’s action of 1991
In 1989 her husband stopped living with the applicant and their children.
On 3 May 1991 the applicant claimed before the District Court in Poprad that the children should be placed in her custody and that their father should be obliged to contribute to their maintenance.
The District Court issued an injunction on 28 April 1992.
Subsequently the District Court took further evidence. On 16 February 1993 it delivered a judgment. The children were placed in the applicant’s custody and the father was ordered to pay for their maintenance.
In April 1993 the applicant appealed. On 24 June 1993 the court of appeal quashed the contested part of the first-instance judgment which concerned the outstanding claim for maintenance.
The District Court delivered its second judgment on 20 April 1994. On 11 July 1994 the father of the children appealed. On 31 January 2005 the Regional Court in Košice quashed in part the judgment in issue.
In April 1996 the applicant’s son was heard. Attempts were made to hear also the applicant’s daughter, but the latter refused. In November 1996 and May 1997 the District Court made requests for further documentary evidence.
In March and May 1998 the father requested that his parental rights in respect of his son should be modified.
On 12 June 1998 the District Court issued an order adjusting the maintenance which the father was obliged to pay in respect of the son.
On 14 July 1998 the District Court imposed a procedural fine on the applicant for her failure to appear.
On 5 August 1998 the father appealed against the order of 12 June 1998. The court of appeal upheld that decision on 21 October 1998.
Further hearings were scheduled for 7 January 1999, 29 January 1999, 26 February 1999, 6 May 1999 and 29 June 1999. On the last mentioned date the District Court, by an order, modified the father’s obligation to contribute to the maintenance of the son. The applicant appealed on 17 August 1999. On 4 February 2000 the court of appeal quashed the order.
On 16 May 2001 the District Court discontinued the proceedings in respect of the father’s request of 20 May 1998.
The father did not appear before the District Court on 7 April 2003.
On 2 June 2003 the case was adjourned as it was necessary to examine whether the judge dealing with the case was biased. On 31 July 2003 the President of the District Court transferred the case to a different chamber.
The parties failed to appear before the court on 25 September 2003.
On 7 April 2004 the Constitutional Court found that the District Court in Poprad had violated the applicant’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time.
The Constitutional Court awarded SKK 50,000 (the equivalent of 1,243 euros at that time) to the applicant as just satisfaction; it also obliged the District Court to avoid any further delay in the proceedings and to reimburse the costs of the constitutional proceedings to the applicant.
In a judgment given on 22 October 2004 the District Court determined the outstanding issues. That judgment became final on 22 December 2004.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings and the lack of an effective remedy in that connection.
THE LAW
On 26 March 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 8,000 (eight thousand) euros to Ms Edita Kmeťová 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 23 March 2007 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant:
“I, Edita Kmeťová, the applicant, note that the Government of the Slovak Republic are prepared to pay me the sum of 8,000 (eight 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.
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). 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. Early Nicolas Bratza
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy