FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 50568/08
by Radoslav OLIJÁŠ
against Slovakia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 25 January 2011 as a Chamber composed of:
Nicolas Bratza, President,
Lech Garlicki,
Ljiljana Mijović,
David Thór Björgvinsson,
Ján Šikuta,
Päivi Hirvelä,
Mihai Poalelungi, judges,
and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 11 October 2008,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Radoslav Olijáš, is a Slovak national who was born in 1978 and lives in Bratislava. He was represented before the Court by Mr D. Novotný, a lawyer practising in Jičín in the Czech Republic.
The Government of the Slovak Republic (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms M. Pirošíková.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 13 July 2004 the Bratislava II District Court (Okresný súd) dismissed a petition by the Bratislava Regional Directorate of Police (Krajské riaditeľstvo Policajného Zboru) for the enforcement against the applicant of a fine of 300 Slovakian korunas (SKK) for a minor offence (priestupok), on the ground that the instrument imposing the fine did not comply with formal requirements and, as such, was null and void.
In the same decision, the District Court ruled that the Police Directorate was to pay the applicant SKK 772 by way of compensation for the applicant’s legal costs. The Police Directorate did not appeal and, on 27 August 2004, the decision became final and binding.
The applicant subsequently petitioned for judicial enforcement of the order for costs of 13 July 2004 against the Police Directorate and the latter raised objections (námietky) to the enforcement which were found belated. The Police Directorate was consequently ordered to pay the applicant a further amount of SKK 400 by way of compensation for his additional legal costs.
The enforcement of these orders against the Police Directorate has proved to be impossible on a variety of legal and practical grounds.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that it had proved impossible for him to enforce an adjudicated claim against the State.
2. The applicant also complained that the non-enforcement of the order against the State for costs in his favour had been incompatible with his rights guaranteed under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
THE LAW
On 11 January 2011 the Court received the following declaration from the Government:
“I, Marica Pirošíková, Agent of the Government, declare that the Government of the Slovak Republic offer to pay, ex gratia to Radoslav OLIJÁŠ, with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights, 1,400 euros (one thousand four hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.
This sum will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision 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 19 January 2011 the Court received the following declaration signed on behalf of the applicant by his lawyer:
“I, Daniel Novotný, the lawyer, note that the Government of the Slovak Republic are prepared to pay ex gratia to Radoslav OLIJÁŠ, with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights, 1,400 euros (one thousand four hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.
This sum will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision 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.
Having consulted my client, I would inform you that he accepts the proposal and waives any further claims against Slovakia in respect of the facts giving rise to this application. He declares 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 strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Lawrence EarlyNicolas Bratza
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy