THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 63158/14
Gejza PERHÁCS
against Slovakia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 29 September 2015 as a Committee composed of:
Kristina Pardalos, President,
Valeriu Griţco,
Armen Harutyunyan, judges,
and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 4 September 2014,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 24 February 2015 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicant’s reply to that declaration,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Gejza Perhács, is a Slovak national, who was born in 1981 and lives in Kráľovský Chlmec. He was represented before the Court by Mr B. Reken, a lawyer practising in Bratislava.
The Slovak Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms M. Pirošíková.
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of criminal proceedings initiated against him on 8 December 2008 by the investigator of the Inspection Services of the Ministry of the Interior. The proceedings held before all levels of the public prosecution service and two levels of jurisdiction have lasted for more than 6 years and are still pending.
On 2 July 2014, the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant’s complaint about the right to a hearing within a reasonable time under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
The application had been communicated to the Government.
THE LAW
After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 24 February 2015 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
The declaration provided as follows:
“The Government acknowledge the unreasonable duration of the domestic proceedings in which the applicant was involved.
I, Marica Pirošíková, the Agent of the Government of the Slovak Republic before the European Court of Human Rights, declare that the Government offer to pay to Mr Gejza Perhács the sum of EUR 3,960 (three thousand nine hundred sixty euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.
The Government would suggest that the above information be accepted by the Court as “any other reason” justifying the striking out of the case of the Court’s list of cases, as referred to in Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
In the event of the Court’s decision pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the Convention, the Government undertake to pay to the applicant the declared sum within the three months from the date of notification of the decision. 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. This payment will constitute the final settlement of the case.”
By a letter of 7 April 2015, the applicant disagreed with the terms of the unilateral declaration since he considered the sum offered to be inappropriate.
The Court reiterates that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified, under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. Article 37 § 1 (c) enables the Court in particular 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”.
It also reiterates that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application under Article 37 § 1(c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued.
To this end, the Court has examined the declaration carefully in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; WAZA Spółka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.), no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.), no. 28953/03, 18 September 2007).
The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Slovakia, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see, for example, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII; Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, §§ 178-227, ECHR 2006‑V; Pavlík v. Slovakia, no. 74827/01, §§ 109-111, 30 January 2007 or Krumpel and Krumpelová v. Slovakia, no. 56195/00, §§ 50-51, 5 July 2005).
Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1(c)).
Moreover, in light of the above considerations, and in particular given the clear and extensive case-law on the topic, 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).
The Court considers that this amount should be paid within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision issued in accordance with Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to settle within this period, simple interest shall be payable on the amount in question at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank plus three percentage points.
Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application could be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention (see Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).
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 under Article 37 § 1 of the Convention and of the modalities 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 22 October 2015.
Marialena TsirliKristina Pardalos
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy