THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 598/17
Zdenka KUDLÁČOVÁ
against Slovakia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 8 March 2018 as a Committee composed of:
Luis López Guerra, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Jolien Schukking, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 14 December 2016,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant was represented by JUDr. Richard Bauer, a lawyer practising in Košice.
The applicant’s complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of criminal proceedings was communicated to the Government of the Slovak Republic (“the Government”).
THE LAW
After unsuccessful friendly-settlement negotiations, the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by this application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
The Government acknowledged the unreasonable duration of the domestic proceedings in which the applicant was involved and, at the same time, noted that the applicant expressly wished not to pursue any claims for just satisfaction in the proceedings before the Court. They invited the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
The applicant was sent the terms of the Government’s unilateral declaration several weeks before the date of this decision. The Court has not received a response from the applicant accepting the terms of the declaration.
The Court observes that Article 37 § 1 (c) enables it to strike a case out of its list if:
“... for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.
Thus, it may strike out applications under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicants wish the examination of the cases to be continued (see, in particular, the Tahsin Acar v. Turkey judgment (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75‑77, ECHR 2003-VI).
The Court has established clear and extensive case-law concerning complaints relating to the excessive length of criminal proceedings (see, for example, Pavlík v. Slovakia, no. 74827/01, 30 April 2007).
Noting the admission contained in the Government’s declaration as well as the fact that the applicant has not advanced any claims under Article 41 of the Convention and has repeatedly expressed her wish not to receive any compensation under that provision, the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c)).
In the light of the above considerations, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
Done in English and notified in writing on 29 March 2018.
Liv TigerstedtLuis López Guerra
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
Application raising the complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
(excessive length of criminal proceedings)
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant name
Date of birth
Representative name and location
Date of receipt of Government’s declaration
Date of receipt of applicant’s comments, if any
598/17
14/12/2016
Zdenka Kudláčová
18/03/1964
Richard Bauer
Košice
07/08/2017
27/09/2017
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy