FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 36177/05
by Juraj KOMKA
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 30 September 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, Mr Juraj Komka, is a Slovak national who was born in 1952 and lives in Prešov. He was represented before the Court by Ms D. Komková, a lawyer practising in Prešov. 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 26 April 1977 the District Court in Prešov determined the value of the estate of the applicant’s father. In September and October 1997 two heirs on whom the decision had not been served appealed. On 30 May 2000 the court of appeal quashed the decision on the value of the estate.
The case was returned to the District Court in Prešov on 21 June 2000.
On 9 February 2004 the District Court discontinued the proceedings. On 26 September 2004 the court of appeal quashed that decision.
Three heirs including the applicant separately complained to the Constitutional Court about the length of the proceedings.
On 9 March 2005 the Fourth Chamber of the Constitutional Court found that in the above proceedings the District Court in Prešov had violated the right of the applicant’s sister to a hearing without unjustified delay. It awarded just satisfaction to the plaintiff and ordered the District Court to avoid further delays in the proceedings (judgment IV. ÚS 3/05-25).
On 30 March 2005 the Third Chamber of the Constitutional Court delivered a similar judgment upon a complaint filed by the applicant’s brother (judgment III. ÚS 14/05-36).
On 27 April 2005 the District Court decided on the distribution of the estate.
On 2 June 2005 the Second Chamber of the Constitutional Court concluded that the District Court in Prešov had not violated the applicant’s right to a hearing without unjustified delay (decision II. ÚS 74/05-27). The decision stated that a period of inactivity of 9 months and several other delays of short duration did not warrant the conclusion that the length of the proceedings had been excessive in the circumstances of the case.
In his comments on the applicant’s complaint to the Constitutional Court the President of the District Court stated that three heirs had filed separate complaints about the length of the proceedings. He expressed the view that the heirs had thereby attempted to increase the just satisfaction which might be awarded to them.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings.
2. The applicant complained that the above statement of the President of the District Court according to which his behaviour had been aimed at increasing the just satisfaction award in constitutional proceedings was discriminatory. He relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 12.
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 4,000 (four thousand euros) to Mr Juraj Komka 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 2 July 2007 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant:
“I, Juraj Komka, the applicant, note that the Government of the Slovak Republic are prepared to pay me ex gratia the sum of EUR 4,000 (four 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).
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