European Court of Human Rights

FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 48558/06
by Terézia BRUŇOVÁ
against Slovakia

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 23 September 2008 as a Chamber composed of:

Nicolas Bratza, President,
Lech Garlicki,
Giovanni Bonello,
Ljiljana Mijović,
Ján Šikuta,
Mihai Poalelungi,
Nebojša Vučinić, judges,
and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 29 November 2006;

Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 20 May 2008 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases;

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Ms Terézia Bruňová, is a Slovak national who was born in 1954 and lives in Michalovce. She was represented before the Court by Mr R. Soták, a lawyer practising in Michalovce. 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.

1. Proceedings concerning the applicant’s action for damages

On 20 November 2000 the applicant sued a company for damages before the District Court in Michalovce.

On 15 November 2001 the District Court discontinued the proceedings. The Regional Court in Košice quashed that decision on 26 March 2001.

In 2002 and 2003 the District Court scheduled ten hearings several of which had to be adjourned at the request of the representative of the defendant.

On 11 April 2003 the District Court dismissed the action. On 19 February 2004 the Regional Court quashed a part of the first-instance judgment.

The District Court scheduled five hearings between May 2004 and May 2005.

On 28 February 2006 the District Court delivered a judgment on the merits which became final.

2. Constitutional proceedings

On 22 February 2006 the Constitutional Court found that the District Court in Michalovce had violated the applicant’s right under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to a hearing within a reasonable time.

The Constitutional Court awarded SKK 20,000 (the equivalent of 537 euros at that time) to the applicant as just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It also ordered the District Court to avoid any further delay in the proceedings and to reimburse the applicant’s legal costs.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings.

THE LAW

By letter dated 20 May 2008 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by 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 acknowledge both the applicant’s status of the victim within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention and the unreasonable duration of the domestic proceedings in which the applicant was involved.

I, Marica Pirošíková, the Agent of the Government of the Slovak Republic before the European Court of Human Rights, declare that the Government offer to pay ex gratia to the applicant the sum of EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros). This sum shall cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage together with any costs and expenses incurred by the applicant with respect to the violation of her right under the Convention.

The Government would suggest that the above information might 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 undertake to pay to the applicant the declared sum within three months from the date of notification of the decision. This sum will be converted into Slovakian korunas at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and free of any taxes that may be applicable. 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.”

The applicant submitted no comments.

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”.

The Court also recalls that under certain circumstances, it may strike out an application under Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention 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); Meriakri v. Moldova ((striking out), no. 53487/99, 1 March 2005); Swedish Transport Workers Union v. Sweden ((striking out), no. 53507/99, 18 July 2006) and Van Houten v. the Netherlands ((striking out), no. 25149/03, ECHR 2005 IX).

The Court has established in a number of cases 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 ....). Furthermore, it has already had occasion to address complaints related to alleged breach of one’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time in cases against the Slovak Republic (see, for example, Kuril v. Slovakia, no. 63959/00, §§ 35-43, 3 October 2006; Rišková v. Slovakia, no. 58174/00, §§ 88-97, 22 August 2006 or Sika v. Slovakia, no. 2132/02, §§ 28-35, 13 June 2006).

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)) (see, for the relevant principles, Tahsin Acar as cited above; and also Haran v. Turkey, no. 25754/94, judgment of 26 March 2002). Moreover, in the 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).

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 accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.

Lawrence Early Nicolas Bratza
Registrar President