SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 24851/03
by Marie OBSTOVÁ and Ladislav OBST
against the Czech Republic
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 18 October 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 4 August 2003,
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 regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants, mother and her son, are two Czech citizens who were born in 1922 and 1954 respectively, and live in Prague and Brno respectively. They are represented before the Court by Ms Irena Benešová, a lawyer practising in Prague. The Government is represented by their Agent, Mr. V.A. Schorm, Ministry of Justice.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 14 February 1990 the Prague 5 District Court (obvodní soud) ordered Mr and Ms T. to pay CZK 48,876.50 (EUR 1,629) to the first applicant and her husband.
As Mr and Ms T. failed to comply with the order, the applicant and her husband sought its enforcement on 16 August 1990. This ended more that 14 and a half years later on 17 March 2005 with a District Court measure.
COMPLAINT
Invoking Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicants originally complained that the proceedings lasted an unreasonably long time.
THE LAW
The Court received the following declaration from the Government:
“I, Vít Schorm, Agent of the Government of the Czech Republic, declare that the Government of the Czech Republic offer to pay 10,000 euros to Marie Obstová and 1,500 to Ladislav Obst with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.
These sums, which are to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be converted into Czech korunas at the rate applicable on the date of payment, free of any taxes that may be applicable. They 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 these sums within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it, from the 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.”
The Court received the following declaration signed by the applicants:
“We, Marie Obstová and Ladislav Obst, note that the Government of the Czech Republic are prepared to pay to us the sum of 10,000 and 1,500 euros respectively with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.
These sums, which are to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be converted into Czech korunas at the rate applicable on the date of payment, free of any taxes that may be applicable. They 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 the Czech Republic in respect of the facts giving rise to this application. We declare that this constitutes the final resolution of the case.”
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. Dollé J.-P. Costa
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy