SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 55377/00
by Ladislav NEUMANN
against the Czech Republic
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 29 June 2004 as a Chamber composed of:
MrJ.-P. Costa, President,
MrA.B. Baka,
MrL. Loucaides,
MrK. Jungwiert,
MrV. Butkevych,
MrsW. Thomassen,
MrM. Ugrekhelidze, judges,
and Mrs S. Dollé, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 1 July 1999,
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 observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Ladislav Neumann, is a Czech national who was born in 1940 and lives in Prague. He was represented before the Court by Mrs M. Linhartová, a lawyer practising in Praha 1. The respondent Government were represented by their Agent, Mr V. A. Schorm.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
a. Facts prior to 18 March 1992, the date of entry into force of the Convention with regard to the Czech Republic
On 11 June 1970 the applicant suffered serious injuries due to an accident at work. The employer, a co-operative producer (výrobní družstvo), paid the applicant compensation. On 21 January 1984 the applicant was awarded a full invalidity benefit.
On 30 November 1984, the applicant, maintaining that his health had deteriorated, brought proceedings for damages against the Czech Union of Co-operative Producers (Český svaz výrobních družstev) (hereinafter “the CUCP”), the entity which had decided to wind-up the co-operative producer concerned. He also cited in his action the Ministry of Health and Social Affairs (Ministerstvo zdravotnictví a sociálních věcí), the Stavocentral, the company to which the members and employees of the co-operative producer had been transferred after it had been wound-up, and the Czech State Insurance Company (Česká státní pojišťovna). In bringing this action, the applicant sought to recover damages for the difficulties he experienced in readjusting to daily life (ztížení společenského uplatnění), and for his loss of capacity to perform domestic work (ztráta schopnosti vykonávat domácí práce). He also sought compensation for other quantifiable losses occasioned by the accident.
On 15 September 1988 the Prague 7 District Court (obvodní soud) ordered the CUCP to pay the applicant CZK 158,546 (4,999 euros – “EUR”) for the difficulties he experienced in readjusting to daily life. The remainder of the applicant’s action was dismissed.
On 20 December 1989 the Prague Municipal Court (městský soud), upon the CUCP’s appeal, quashed the judgment of the District Court and dismissed the applicant’s action as a whole.
On 15 May 1990 the applicant filed a request with the Prosecutor General (Generální procurator) aimed at the introduction of a plea of nullity in the interests of the preservation of the law (podnět ke stížnosti pro porušení zákona).
b. Facts after 18 March 1992
On 14 December 1992 the Prosecutor General informed the applicant that he had filed with the Supreme Court (Nejvyšší soud) a plea of nullity in the interests of the preservation of the law.
On 29 November 1993 the Prague High Court, to which the applicant’s case had been transferred by the Supreme Court on 18 February 1992, quashed the judgments of the District Court of 15 September 1988 and of the Municipal Court of 20 December 1989 in so far as they concerned the first and second defendants, and sent the case back to the court of first instance.
After various hearings, on 15 March 1995 the District Court ordered the CUCP to pay the applicant the following amounts: CZK 158,546 (EUR 4,999) to compensate him for his difficulties in readjusting to daily life; CZK 100,000 (EUR 3,153) to cover other material loss and medical expenses in the period between 1 March 1989 and 31 March 1995; CZK 157,507 (EUR 4,966) for loss of earnings for the period from 1 January 1989 to 31 March 1995; and, finally, a monthly payment amounting to CZK 4,455 (EUR 140).
On 28 April 1995 the District Court rectified the text of its judgment by ordering the CUCP to pay the applicant CZK 97,282 (EUR 3,067) for loss of earnings, since the sum of CZK 59,325 (EUR 1,870) had already been paid to him by the Czech State Insurance Company.
Upon the CUCP’s and applicant’s appeals, the Municipal Court, after a hearing on 5 December 1995, quashed the District Court’s judgment on 30 January 1996 and remitted the case to the latter court.
On 15 November 1996, after having held two hearings on 21 June and 11 October 1996, the District Court ordered the CUCP to pay damages to the applicant in the sum of CZK 508,316 (EUR 16,026), as well as a monthly payment of CZK 5,924 (EUR 187). The District Court dismissed the remainder of the applicant’s claims.
On 27 January 1997 the applicant appealed against this judgment.
On 12 December 1997 the District Court, after a hearing on 17 October 1997, supplemented the judgment by stating that the second defendant was not entitled to have its court fees reimbursed by the applicant.
On 10 March 1998 the case file was submitted to the Municipal Court which, after a hearing on 21 May 1998, modified the District Court’s judgment on 10 September 1998. The Municipal Court ordered the CUCP to pay the applicant CZK 158,546 (EUR 4,999) for his difficulties in readjusting to daily life and CZK 217,430 (EUR 6,855) for other material damage and medical expenses.
On 4 January 1999 the judgment became enforceable.
COMPLAINT
The applicant originally complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the length of the proceedings was excessive.
THE LAW
On 30 April 2004 the Court received the following declaration signed by both of the parties:
[Translation of the Government]
“The Government of the Czech Republic, represented before the European Court of Human Rights by its Agent Mr. Vít Alexander Schorm (“the Government”),
and
Mr. Ladislav Neumann (“the Applicant”), represented by his counsel Mrs. Monika Linhartová,
declare that:
1. they have reached a friendly settlement of case No. 55377/00 – Ladislav Neumann v. the Czech Republic (“the Application”);
2. the Government will pay to the Applicant a total amount of 257,775 Czech crowns (in words “two hundred and fifty-seven thousand seven hundred and seventy-five Czech crowns”) [8,126.99 Euro], within three months from the date of the notification of the judgement 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;
6. neither the Government nor the Applicant will request that the case be referred to the Court’s Grand Chamber under Article 43 § 1 of the Convention after the delivery of the Court’s judgement under Article 39 of the Convention;
7. the friendly settlement of the Application according to this declaration may be subject to approval by the Government at its ministerial meeting; the Applicant takes due note of this reservation.”
The Government have informed the Court of the decision of the Ministry of Justice not to have recourse to point 7 of the above declaration.
The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the further examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). Accordingly, the application to the case of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should be discontinued and the case struck out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
S. DolléJ.-P. Costa
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy