FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 7173/06
by František PUZDER
against Slovakia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 13 November 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
SirNicolas Bratza, President,
MrJ. Casadevall,
MrG. Bonello,
MrK. Traja,
MrL. Garlicki,
MsL. Mijović,
MrJ. Šikuta, judges,
and Mrs F. Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 8 February 2006,
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 decision to grant priority to the above application under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Frantisek Puzder, is a Slovak national who was born in 1944 and lives in Košice. The Slovak Government (“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.
1. Action
In 1992 the applicant was assaulted and robbed and suffered injuries to his eye which resulted in blindness. The offender was convicted.
On 20 March 1994 the applicant brought an action in the Košice II District Court (Okresný súd) against the hospital where he had been treated complaining of malpractice and seeking damages.
Between 2 March 1995 and 17 April 1996 the District Court held 4 hearings and obtained various witness and documentary evidence. The last hearing was adjourned with a view to obtaining expert evidence.
On 16 December 1996 the District Court appointed an ophthalmologist to draw up a report on the case. On 8 January 1997 the doctor informed the court that he was no longer engaged in giving expert evidence. On 14 February 1997 the District Court appointed a new expert who filed his report on 22 October 1997.
Between 14 May 1997 and 13 March 1998 the District Court held 3 hearings and endeavoured to obtain the applicant’s medical records from various sources.
On 12 March 1998 the District Court dismissed the action as unfounded. The applicant appealed, challenging mainly the expert’s factual conclusions.
On 19 January 1999 the Košice Regional Court (Krajský súd) held a hearing following which, on the same day, it quashed the judgment of 12 March 1998 and remitted the case to the District Court for the taking of further expert evidence and a re-examination.
Between 22 March 2001 and 30 April 2003 the District Court held a further 4 hearings. Following the hearing of 30 April 2003, on the same day, the District Court again dismissed the action. The applicant appealed.
On 2 June 2003 the Regional Court quashed the judgment of 30 April 2003 and remitted the case to the District Court. It found that the expert evidence still had to be completed and re-examined.
The action is still pending.
2. Constitutional complaint
On 7 April 2004 the Constitutional Court (Ústavný súd) found, on the applicant’s complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution, that the District Court had violated the applicant’s constitutional right to a hearing without unreasonable delay, ordered the District Court to proceed with the action promptly, awarded the applicant 40,000 Slovakian korunas[1] (SKK) in just satisfaction and ordered the reimbursement of his legal costs.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the length of the proceedings in his action had been excessive.
THE LAW
On 19 October 2007 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant:
“I, František Puzder, the applicant, note that the Government of the Slovak Republic are prepared to pay me ex gratia the sum of EUR 5,500 (five thousand five 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 non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be converted into Slovak 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 22 October 2007 the Court received the following declaration from 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 5,500 (five thousand five hundred euros) to Mr Frantisek Puzder 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 non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be converted into Slovak 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). In view of the above, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 and 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.
Fatoş AracıNicolas Bratza
Deputy RegistrarPresident
[1] SKK 40,000 is equivalent to approximately 1,200 euros (EUR).
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy