FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 31526/04
by Jaroslav SIHELSKÝ
against Slovakia
lodged on 23 August 2004
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 10 July 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
SirNicolas Bratza, President,
MrJ. Casadevall,
MrS. Pavlovschi,
MrL. Garlicki,
MsL. Mijović,
MrJ. Šikuta,
MrsP. Hirvelä, judges,
and Mr T. L. Early, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 23 August 2004,
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 Jaroslav Sihelský, is a Slovakian national who was born in 1959 and lives in Vidiná. He was represented before the Court by Ms V. Hellenbart, a lawyer practising in Lučenec. The respondent Government were represented by Ms M. Pirošíková, their Agent.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
1. Factual background
The applicant had a grandmother, M.O., who was married to Š.O. They had a daughter who was the applicant’s mother, A.S., another daughter, M.K., and a son, J.O.
On 21 May 1991 M.O. drew up a will bequeathing the whole of her estate to M.K. and J.O. and disinheriting A.S.
On 17 June 1991 M.O. died.
On 24 March and 26 July 1992, respectively, Š.O. and A.S. died.
2. Inheritance proceedings
The succession case of M.O. first fell to be determined by the Zvolen State Notary Office (Štátne notárstvo). Following the abolition of State Notary Offices, the case was dealt with by the Zvolen District Court (Okresný súd), which appointed a notary public to carry out the proceedings as an agent of the court (súdny komisár).
On 26 September 1991 the State notary informed A.S. that she could contest her disinheritance in court and J.O. that he could seek a judicial ruling on the scope of the estate. The State notary decided to stay the inheritance proceedings pending the outcome of these actions by A.S. and J.O. (see below).
On 26 October 1995 the notary held a hearing at which she established the potential heirs. The applicant took part in that hearing as the legal successor of A.S. The notary instructed him that he had the possibility of challenging the disinheritance of his mother, A.S.
On 21 November 1995 the inheritance proceedings were stayed pending the outcome of the action brought by the applicant (see below).
On 27 July 1998 the District Court directed the notary to resume the proceedings.
The scope and value of the estate and its distribution among the heirs were determined twice but the decisions were quashed on appeal.
On 27 September 2002 the notary again ruled on the scope, value and distribution of the estate. The decision was confirmed by the District Court on 9 October 2002 and upheld on appeal by the Regional Court on 9 April 2003. The matter became res iudicata on 4 June 2003.
3. Related actions
A.S. brought an action to contest her disinheritance, but the action was discontinued on 16 December 1992 following her death.
The action by J.O. for a judicial ruling on the scope of the estate was decided by a final decision of the Regional Court of 30 September 1994.
The applicant challenged the disinheritance of his mother, A.S., by his grandmother, M.O. By a final decision in 1998 the applicant’s action was allowed.
4. Constitutional complaint
On 28 January 2004, on the applicant’s complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution, the Constitutional Court found that the District Court had violated the applicant’s right to a hearing “without unjustified delay” (Article 48 § 1 of the Constitution) and “within a reasonable time” (Article 6 § 1 of the Convention). The Constitutional Court awarded the applicant 20,000[1] Slovakian korunas by way of just satisfaction in respect of non‑pecuniary damage, ordered reimbursement of his legal costs and dismissed the remainder of his just satisfaction claim.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the length of the inheritance proceedings had been excessive and that the amount of just satisfaction awarded by the Constitutional Court was unacceptably low.
2. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 the applicant further complained that during and as a result of the excessively lengthy proceedings he had been prevented from peacefully enjoying his possession – the inheritance.
THE LAW
On 1 June 2007 the Court received the following declaration signed 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 3,250 (three thousand two hundred and fifty euros) to Mr Jaroslav Sihelský 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.”
On 25 June 2007 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant:
“I, Jaroslav Sihelský, the applicant, note that the Government of the Slovak Republic are prepared to pay me ex gratia the sum of EUR 3,250 (three thousand two hundred and fifty 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.”
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 of the Convention 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.
T.L. EarlyNicolas Bratza
RegistrarPresident
[1] SKK 20,000 is equivalent to approximately EUR 525.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy