FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 15566/02
by Eva VELEBNÁ and Jozef VELEBNÝ
against Slovakia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 10 May 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 25 March 2002,
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 observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The first applicant, Mrs Eva Velebná, and the second applicant, Mr Jozef Velebný, are Slovakian nationals who were born in 1955 and 1957 respectively and live in Bratislava. They are a married couple. The respondent Government are 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 sister of the first applicant, Mrs B, lived together with her husband, Mr B, in a flat. The marriage was dissolved. Mr B. was then ordered to vacate the flat as soon as he was provided with a substitute dwelling.
The applicants own another flat and they agreed to place it at the disposal of Mr B so that the order for vacation could be enforced.
Mr B moved into the applicants’ flat, but then refused to sign a formal lease.
2. Action for vacation of the flat and related constitutional complaint
On 9 June 1999 Mrs B brought an action against Mr B in the Bratislava III District Court (Okresný súd). She argued that there was no justification for the defendant’s refusal of the contract of lease proposed by the applicants and sought an order that he vacate the flat.
On 3 November 1999 the first applicant submitted that she wished to join the action. On 26 April 2000 the second applicant made a similar submission. At some later point the applicants submitted that the defendant was in arrears with the rent.
On 28 November 2000 Mrs B withdrew from the action.
On 13 February 2001 the District Court ruled that in so far as the applicants alleged that the defendant had not paid the rent, their claim would be examined in a separate set of proceedings, which was opened at the same time under a new file number. The District Court also decided to stay the proceedings in the action of 9 June 1999 pending the outcome of the newly‑opened proceedings.
On 26 February 2001 the District Court discontinued the separate set of proceedings which had been opened pursuant to the decision of 13 February 2001 in respect of the unpaid rent on the ground that the same claim had already been made in another action and was still pending (see below).
On 25 June 2002 the District Court dismissed the action of 9 June 1999.
On 21 May 2003, on the applicants’ complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution, the Constitutional Court (Ústavný súd) found that there had been no violation of their right to a hearing “without unjustified delay” (Article 48 § 2 of the Constitution) and “within a reasonable time” (Article 6 § 1 of the Convention) in the action of 9 June 1999.
On 27 January 2004 the Bratislava Regional Court (Krajský súd) quashed the judgment of 25 June 2002 on the applicants’ appeal and remitted the case to the District Court.
The proceedings are still pending.
3. Action for payment of rent and related constitutional complaint
On 30 November 1999 the first applicant brought an action against Mr B. She claimed that he was in arrears with the rent and sought an order for payment of the amount due.
On 26 April 2000 the second applicant submitted that he wished to join the action.
On 23 September 2003, on the applicants’ constitutional complaint, the Constitutional Court found that the District Court had violated their right to a hearing “without unjustified delay” and “within a reasonable time” as regards the action of 30 November 1999. The District Court was ordered to proceed with the action promptly and the applicants were each awarded 10,000[1] Slovakian korunas (SKK) in damages.
On 26 May 2005 the District Court granted the action. The defendant appealed and the proceedings are still pending.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the length of the proceedings in the above two actions had been excessive.
2. The applicants also complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that, during the excessively lengthy proceedings, they had been prevented from enjoying peacefully their possessions, namely the flat in question.
THE LAW
On 3 April 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 jointly 4,000 (four thousand) euros to Mrs Eva Velebná and Mr Jozef Velebný 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 2 April 2007 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicants:
“We, Eva Velebná and Jozef Velebný, the applicants, note that the Government of the Slovak Republic are prepared to pay jointly the sum of 4,000 (four thousand) euros to Mrs Eva Velebná and Mr Jozef Velebný 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.
We accept the proposal and waive any further claims against Slovakia in respect of the facts giving rise to these applications. We 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). Accordingly, Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it should be struck 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 10,000 is equivalent to approximately EUR 263.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy