FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 23844/04
Ľubomíra KORBOVÁ and Others
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 22 June 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 applicants are siblings. Ms Ľubomíra Korbová was born in 1985, Mr Peter Korba was born in 1986, Ms Bibiána Korbová was born in 1991 and Mr Patrik Korba was born in 1994. They are Slovakian nationals and reside in Spišská Nová Ves. They were represented before the Court by Mrs I. Rajtáková, a lawyer practising in Košice. 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 January 2000 the applicants, through their mother, requested the District Court in Spišská Nová Ves to enforce a judgment under which their father had been obliged to contribute to their maintenance.
On 11 February 2000 the District Court ordered the enforcement of the judgment in issue. The defendant appealed on 15 March 2000.
Hearings were scheduled for 29 October 2001 and 21 January 2002.
On 9 May 2002 the applicants’ mother submitted further information at the District Court’s request.
The District Court scheduled hearings for 9 May 2002, 27 May 2002 and 28 November 2002.
On 5 December 2003 the Constitutional Court found that in the above enforcement proceedings the District Court had violated the applicants’ right to a hearing within a reasonable time in that it had dealt with the case in a slow and inefficient manner.
The Constitutional Court awarded just satisfaction of SKK 10,000 (the equivalent of 243 euros at that time) to each of the applicants. It also ordered the District Court to proceed with the case without further delays and to reimburse the plaintiffs’ costs.
In a decision of 29 December 2003 the District Court dismissed the defendant’s request for the enforcement to be discontinued and determined the maintenance due.
On 16 January 2004 the defendant appealed.
On 20 February 2004 the court of appeal quashed a part of the first‑instance decision and ordered the District Court to re-examine and decide on the relevant part of the case.
From 14 June 2004 to 29 March 2005 the file was put at the disposal of the Disciplinary Court.
On 5 May 2005 the case was assigned to a different judge.
On 7 June 2005 the District Court informed the parties that it could not proceed with the case pending the determination of a preliminary issue in a different set of proceedings.
On 1 March 2006 the applicants informed the District Court that they had requested an executions officer to execute the relevant decisions. On 16 March 2006 the case was transferred to a different chamber of the District Court dealing with execution matters.
On 29 November 2006 the District Court judge involved was excluded. The case was assigned to a different judge on 28 February 2007. As the newly appointed judge had been found biased in a different set of proceedings concerning the applicants’ parents, the case was transferred to another judge on 6 March 2007.
On 15 March 2007 the District Court approved of the execution as requested by the applicants.
The proceedings are pending.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention about the length of the enforcement proceedings and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect.
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 jointly EUR 7,000 (seven thousand euros) to Ms Ľubomíra Korbová, Mr Peter Korba, Ms Bibiána Korbová and Mr Patrik Korba 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 26 June 2007 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicants’ representative:
“We, Ľubomíra Korbová, Peter Korba, Bibiána Korbová and Patrik Korba, the applicants, note that the Government of the Slovak Republic are prepared to pay us jointly the sum of EUR 7,000 (seven 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.
We accept the proposal and waive any further claims against Slovakia in respect of the facts giving rise to these applications. We 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