SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 41570/02
by Jiří KREJČÍ
against the Czech Republic
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 6 September 2005 as a Chamber composed of:
MrJ.-P. Costa, President,
MrI. Cabral Barreto,
MrK. Jungwiert,
MrV. Butkevych,
MrM. Ugrekhelidze,
MrsA. Mularoni,
MrsE. Fura-Sandström, judges,
and Mrs S. Dollé, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 18 November 2002,
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 declaration accepting a friendly settlement of the case.
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Jiří Krejčí, is a Czech national who was born in 1963 and lives in Hlásná Třebáň. He is represented before the Court by Mr V. Vlk, a lawyer practising in Prague.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows:
On 13 July 1995 the Prague-West District Court (okresní soud), upon the applicant’s request of 12 July 1995, ordered Mr B. to pay CZK 30,000 (EUR 950) with default interest to the applicant.
From 1995 the District Court conducted execution proceedings by means of the sale of the defendant’s movable property. It appears that the execution proceedings are still pending.
In the meantime, between June 2000 and January 2001 the court had conducted execution proceedings by means of deductions from the defendant’s salary.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant originally complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the delays in the execution proceedings and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that, due to the lengthy execution proceedings, he was deprived of his property.
THE LAW
On 28 June 2005 the Court received the following declaration signed by the legal representatives of the parties:
[Translation of the Government]
“The Government of the Czech Republic, represented before the European Court of Human Rights by their Agent Mr. Vít Alexander Schorm (“the Government”),
and
Mr. Jiří Krejčí (“the Applicant”), represented by his counsel Mr. Václav Vlk,
declare that:
1. they have reached a friendly settlement of case No. 41570/02 – Jiří Krejčí v. the Czech Republic (“the Application”);
2. the Government will pay to the Applicant a total amount of 39,500 Czech crowns (in words “thirty-nine thousand five hundred Czech crowns”) [about 1,315 euros], within three months from the date of the notification of the judgment delivered by the European Court of Human Rights (“the Court”) pursuant to Article 39 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”), to a bank account that the Applicant will specify to the Ministry of Justice without undue delay upon request;
3. the above-mentioned sum is to cover any damage that might have been caused to the Applicant by the Czech Republic through its authorities, including legal expenses;
4. if the above-mentioned amount is not paid within the designated time of three months from the date of the notification of the Court’s judgment, then from the expiry date, a simple interest on the amount shall be paid at an annual rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank plus three percentage points;
5. the Applicant waives any further claims against the Czech Republic based on the facts of the proceedings before the Court on the basis of the Application, and regards this friendly settlement as the final settlement of the Application; ...”
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 public policy 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.
S. Dollé J.-P. Costa
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy