FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 690/12
František URBAN
against the Czech Republic
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 27 August 2013 as a Committee composed of:
Angelika Nußberger, President,
André Potocki,
Aleš Pejchal, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 22 December 2011,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 30 April 2013 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr František Urban, is a Czech national, who was born in 1946 and lives in Mukařov. He was represented before the Court by Ms K. Samková, a lawyer practising in Praha 2.
The Czech Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr V.A. Schorm, of the Ministry of Justice.
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the length of the civil proceedings to which he was a party.
He further raised a complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention in respect of an amended legislation which allegedly violated his legitimate expectation.
THE LAW
1. The applicant complained about the length of the civil proceedings to which he was a party. He relied on Article 6 of the Convention.
After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 30 April 2013 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by this part of 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 hereby acknowledge that in case no. 690/12, there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of an excessive length of judicial proceedings to which the applicant was a party at national level.
The Government offer to pay the applicant a sum of EUR 2,500 (two thousand five hundred euros). The Government note in this context that according to Section 3(4)(d) of Act no. 586/1992, on income tax, payment of just satisfaction awarded by the Court or stemming from a friendly settlement of the case before the Court is not subject to personal income tax.
This sum 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 Convention. 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 periods plus three percentage points.”
The declaration was sent to the applicant who was invited to submit his comments. No reply has been received.
The Court recalls 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 recalls 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 will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (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).
The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against the Czech Republic, 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; Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 69-98, ECHR 2006‑V; Majewski v. Poland, no. 52690/99, 11 October 2005; and Wende and Kukówka v. Poland, no. 56026/00, 10 May 2007; Golha v. the Czech Republic, no. 7051/06, 26 May 2011).
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).
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 (Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).
2. The applicant further complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that there had been a difference in the amount obtained from his original claim because of the legislative amendment which had taken place after he had registered his claim in the insolvency proceedings concerning his debtor. He complained that if it had not been for the delays in proceedings, he would have received 100 % of the claim and not only 30 % of it under newly applicable law. He also invoked Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention in respect of the amended legislation which according to him had violated his legitimate expectation.
Having regard to all the evidence in its possession, and in so far as it has jurisdiction to examine the allegations, the Court has not found any appearance of a breach of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention or its Protocols.
It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration under Article 6 of the Convention and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike part of the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Stephen PhillipsAngelika Nußberger
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy