THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 19952/07
by Klementína VISKUPOVÁ and Others
against Slovakia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 16 June 2011 as a Committee composed of:
Egbert Myjer, President,
Luis López Guerra,
Mihai Poalelungi, judges,
and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 24 April 2007,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicants’ reply to the declaration,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants, Ms Klementína Viskupová, Ms Anna Hermansová and Mr Jozef Stankovič, are Slovak nationals who were born in 1948, 1947 and 1945, respectively. The first and the third applicant live in Bratislava, Slovakia and the second applicant lives in Voorschoten, the Netherlands. The Government of the Slovak Republic (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs M. Pirošíková.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 29 November 1991 the State Notary was informed of the death of the applicants’ mother. Subsequently, inheritance proceedings were initiated. They are still pending before the Bratislava I District Court.
On 4 January 2007 the Constitutional Court found a violation of the applicants’ right to a hearing without undue delay in the inheritance proceedings, awarded them the equivalent of 1,457 euros (EUR) each as just satisfaction and ordered the court concerned to proceed without undue delay.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings.
2. Under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 the applicants complained of infringement of their property rights.
3. The applicants also alleged a violation of Article 13 of the Convention.
THE LAW
A. Length of proceedings
The applicants complained about the length of the proceedings. They relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention which, in so far as relevant, provides as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
On 23 March 2011 the Court received the Government’s unilateral declaration signed on the same day. The Government acknowledged both the applicants’ victim status within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention and the unreasonable duration of the domestic proceedings in which the applicants had been involved. They offered to pay to each applicant the sum of 6,500 euros (six thousand five hundred euros) to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage together with any costs and expenses incurred by the applicants with respect to the violation of their rights under the Convention. They suggested that the above information be accepted by the Court as “any other reason” justifying the striking out of the case of the Court’s list of cases, as referred to in Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. In the event of the Court’s decision pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the Convention, the Government undertook to pay to the applicants the sum indicated above within three months from the date of notification of the decision. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, they 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. This payment would constitute the final settlement of the case.
In a letter of 18 April 2011 the applicants expressed the view that the sum mentioned in the Government’s declaration was unacceptably low.
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 applicants wish 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 Slovakia, 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‑....; Majewski v. Poland, no. 52690/99, 11 October 2005; Wende and Kukówka v. Poland, no. 56026/00, 10 May 2007 and Bič v. Slovakia, no. 23865/03, §§ 33-41, 4 November 2008).
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 this part of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
It should therefore be struck out of the list in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
B. Remaining complaints
The applicants alleged a violation of Article 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
However, in the light of all the materials in its possession, and to the extent that these complaints are substantiated and fall within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights guaranteed under 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 and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in so far as it relates to the length of proceedings complaint in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Marialena TsirliEgbert Myjer
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy