FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 7595/05
by Pavol OMASTA
against Slovakia
lodged on 13 February 2005
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 12 June 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
SirNicolas Bratza, President,
MrJ. Casadevall,
MrG. Bonello,
MrK. Traja,
MrS. Pavlovschi,
MrJ. Šikuta,
MrsP. Hirvelä, judges,
and Mr T.L. Early, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 13 February 2005,
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 deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Pavol Omasta, is a Slovakian national who was born in 1942 and lives in Batizovce. The respondent Government are represented by Mrs M. Pirošíková, their Agent.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant’s family owned real estate located in the cadastral area of Batizovce comprising a house and land. In 1980 three of the applicant’s relatives brought an action against him and four other family members seeking the dissolution of their co-ownership of the above property.
In 1987 courts at two levels of jurisdiction granted the claim, ruling that the plaintiffs were the owners and ordering that they pay the defendants financial compensation. The matter became res iudicata.
In 1990 the Supreme Court (Najvyšší súd) quashed the judgments of 1987 on a complaint in the interest of law (sťažnosť pre porušenie zákona) lodged by the Prosecutor General and remitted the case to the first-instance court for re-examination.
The action was dismissed in 1996, but the judgment was quashed on appeal in 1997.
On 29 May 2003 the Poprad District Court (Okresný súd) divided and distributed the co‑ownership. The judgment became final on 18 July 2003.
The costs of the proceedings were determined by a final decision of the Košice Regional Court (Krajský súd) on 30 March 2004.
On 24 August 2004, on the applicant’s complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution, the Constitutional Court (Ústavný súd) found that the District Court had violated the applicant’s right under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to a hearing within a reasonable time. The applicant was awarded 30,000 Slovakian korunas[1] in just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that his property dispute had not been resolved within a reasonable time.
THE LAW
On 4 April and 2 May 2007 the Court received two identical declarations, signed by the applicant, containing the text quoted below. At the same time, the applicant expressed various comments. From these comments it follows that the applicant wishes to settle the complaint concerning the length of the present proceedings on the terms set out in the declarations, which read as follows:
“I, Pavol Omasta, the applicant, note that the Government of the Slovak Republic are prepared to pay me ex gratia the sum of EUR 2,800 (two thousand eight hundred euros) with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.
This sum, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be converted into Slovakian korunas at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and free of any taxes that may be applicable. It 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.
I accept the proposal and waive any further claims against Slovakia in respect of the facts giving rise to this application. I declare that this constitutes a final resolution of the case.”
On 2 May 2007 the Court received the following declaration singed by the Agent of the Government:
“I, Marica Pirošíková, the Agent of the Government of the Slovak Republic before the European Court of Human Rights, declare that the Government of the Slovak Republic offer to pay ex gratia EUR 2,800 (two thousand eight hundred euros) to Mr Pavol Omasta with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.
This sum, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be converted into Slovakian korunas at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and free of any taxes that may be applicable. It 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 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.”
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). 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.
T.L. EarlyNicolas Bratza
RegistrarPresident
[1] SKK 30,000 is equivalent to approximately EUR 800.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy