FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 45135/06
by Jozef SPIŠIAK
against Slovakia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 25 May 2010 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 2 November 2006,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
The application was lodged by Mr Jozef Spišiak, a Slovak national who was born in 1943 and lives in Košice. He was represented before the Court by Mrs I. Rajtáková, a lawyer practising in Košice. The Slovak Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs M. Pirošíková.
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length and alleged unfairness of enforcement proceedings which started on 15 May 1995 and ended on 7 October 2008. On 28 February 2006 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant's complaint.
On 22 March and 28 April 2010 the Court received friendly settlement declarations signed by the parties under which the applicant agreed to waive any further claims against Slovakia in respect of the facts giving rise to this application against an undertaking by the Government to pay him 2,000 euros to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses. This sum would be free of any taxes that might 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 undertook 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 LAW
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